Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 2011

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe: Discussion

On our agenda this afternoon is the important topic of Ireland's priorities for its chairmanship of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, in 2012. I am very pleased to welcome Mr. David Donoghue, political director of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Mr. Frank Cogan, head of the OSCE task force.

The OSCE is the primary instrument for early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict rehabilitation in Europe, central Asia and North America comprising 56 participating states including all of the members of the EU, the USA, Canada and Russia and 12 partner countries. The OSCE deals with a wide range of security issues including arms control, preventive diplomacy, confidence and security building measures, human rights, election monitoring and economic and environmental security.

Ireland will hold chairmanship of the OSCE throughout 2012. This will be an onerous task and we will ensure clear and realistic priorities as well as the flexibility to respond to any crisis which may arise. It is hoped no crisis will arise during the period. Today's meeting will provide an opportunity to hear what Ireland believes can be achieved through the chairmanship, what issues we will prioritise to distinguish the period of our chairmanship and how these can further the aims of the OSCE.

Prior to inviting the witnesses to make their presentation I advise them they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the utterances made to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease making remarks on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their remarks. They are directed that only comments and evidence connected with the subject matter of this meeting are to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas nor an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I also welcome Deputy Ann Phelan and Senator Jim Walsh who are members of the parliamentary delegation for the OSCE. I call on Mr. David Donoghue to make some opening remarks to the committee.

Mr. David Donoghue

I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear before the committee with my colleague, Mr. Frank Cogan, to discuss Ireland's chairmanship of the OSCE. It is a great honour and privilege for Ireland and the Government, and the Tánaiste and the rest of the Government are looking forward very much to undertaking this task. The chairmanship will begin on 1 January and will last for a year.

The OSCE is not only the world's largest inter-governmental regional security organisation but also its most regionally diverse. At present, it comprises 56 member states but this will increase to 57 shortly and covers a population of 1 billion. The OSCE adopts a comprehensive and co-operative approach to security. It deals with a wide range of security issues, including arms control, preventive diplomacy, confidence and security building measures, human rights, election monitoring and economic and environmental security.

The organisation has a network of 17 missions in the Balkans, eastern Europe and central Asia. The larger missions are in the Balkans and the largest, in Kosovo, has a major role in encouraging inter-ethnic co-operation and promoting the rule of law. The OSCE has field presences in each of the five republics in central Asia, namely, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Ireland was a founder member in 1973 of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, CSCE, which formally evolved into the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1994. Ireland values the OSCE as a forum for many reasons, including that each state participates on the basis of equality and there is a comprehensive concept of security spanning the entire region of 56 member states. Ireland also values its activities in the area of human rights and its role as a regional organisation under the UN Charter in helping to prevent and resolve conflict. There are three policy dimensions to the work of the OSCE, namely, politico-military, economic-environmental and the human aspects of security, which encompasses issues involving human rights and fundamental freedoms. These are the three so-called dimensions of the OSCE. Various commitments under these dimensions have been entered into by the member states in the intervening years through a series of agreements.

Ireland has never before assumed the role of Chair of the OSCE. As chairperson-in-office during the calendar year of 2012, the Tánaiste will bear overall responsibility for the executive action of the organisation and the co-ordination of its activities. His responsibilities include representing the OSCE in various contexts, supervising activities in relation to conflict prevention, post-conflict rehabilitation and providing leadership when crises arise within the OSCE's geographical area, such as in Georgia in 2008 and in Kyrgyzstan last year. Ireland will reap several benefits from chairing the OSCE next year, including a significantly raised EU and international profile over the period in question. Our chairmanship will enhance Ireland's strong reputation for skilled diplomacy and crisis management and will expand our conflict resolution and human rights expertise, both of which are important features of Ireland's foreign policy. It will give us an opportunity to have close and sustained engagement with major international players such as the US, Russia, France and Germany and with countries with whom normally we would have little contact, namely, countries in central Asia. It is a valuable opportunity to enhance Ireland's interests internationally. Ireland is participating in the OSCE troika this year with the current chair of the organisation, Lithuania, whose term of office expires on 31 December, and with Kazakhstan which also previously held the chair.

In his statement to the OSCE's Permanent Council - the group of ambassadors with day-to-day responsibility for the activities of the OSCE - in Vienna on 22 June, the Tánaiste outlined the approach we intended to take to the exercise of the chairmanship role and the priorities we hoped to advance in the year ahead. He noted that the position was an opportunity to highlight Ireland's foreign policy values of multilateral co-operation, the promotion of peace and security and respect for human rights and the rule of law. He also underlined that Ireland would adopt a pragmatic, fair-minded approach and that our aim was to elaborate a set of priorities that will ensure a balanced and coherent approach to the work of the organisation across all three dimensions, namely, the politico-military, economic-environmental and human dimensions. Ireland's proposed priorities for the chairmanship and the outcome of the OSCE ministerial meeting held last week in Vilnius will impact our work programme in 2012. In some instances, we will be carrying forward work commenced during the Lithuanian chairmanship this year.

As chair, we will consistently work to ensure that the OSCE operates at the highest level of efficiency and to keep costs to a minimum. As indicated last week at the Vilnius ministerial meeting by the Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, we are all keenly aware of the resource constraints that affect us all as a result of the global economic crisis. The Secretary General of the OSCE, with whom we have an excellent relationship, is aware of the economic restraints and is actively examining how the OSCE operates and is exploring various reform proposals to strengthen its institutional core. In terms of thematic priorities for next year, Ireland will aim to have an ambitious human dimension agenda. The continuing erosion of democratic freedoms in a number of OSCE participating states is a cause of real concern. Central to Irish foreign policy is our commitment to human rights and democratic values and we will ensure that this is reflected in our chairmanship.

The OSCE's comprehensive security concept, dating back to the 1975 Helsinki Act, considers the human dimension of security, namely, the protection and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic institutions and the rule of law, to be as important for the maintenance of peace and stability as are the politico-military or economic dimensions. We will work closely with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, Warsaw, which was created by participating states as an autonomous body mandated to assist with the implementation of human dimension commitments. Ambassador Janez Lenarcic, the head of ODIHR, will visit Dublin on Thursday of this week and will, I understand, meet a number of Members during his visit. ODIHR works closely with another key OSCE institution, the Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, which is focused exclusively on the topics of freedom of expression and freedom of the media.

Ireland regrets that it was not possible to advance work on the human dimension of the OSCE at the Vilnius ministerial meeting last week owing to lack of consensus on any of the human dimension texts. This may well foreshadow the difficulties we face next year but we intend nevertheless to pursue an ambitious agenda. By way of clarification, all decisions in the OSCE are taken on the basis of consensus. It can frequently be difficult to achieve a decision because the agreement of all 56 member states, east and west, is required. Naturally, there will be different priorities across such a large membership.

As the Tánaiste has already indicated publicly, we intend to prioritise the issue of Internet freedom, in particular as it applies to new digital media. As in other parts of the world, the threat to freedom of expression on-line is ever-present in the OSCE region and appears to be growing. Ireland will work to highlight that human rights and fundamental freedoms do not change with new technologies but extend into the digital age. As part of these efforts, we intend to organise a conference in Dublin next June for OSCE participating states at which we will aim to move towards a common understanding of the issues at stake. In so doing, we will seek to showcase Ireland as the Internet capital of Europe, taking advantage of the presence here of so many industry leaders in Internet and new media technologies, such as Google and Facebook.

We also intend to organise events focused, inter alia, on freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion and belief, trafficking in human beings, and racism and intolerance in sport. The precise nature and focus of these events remains to be defined as we must secure consensus on our package of events early in the New Year, which events will take place in other capitals. We tend to spread the activities across the OSCE region. In the politico-military dimension, Ireland will hope to see continued progress on updating confidence and security building measures and enhancing the conflict prevention capacity of the organisation. We will focus on implementation of the substantial conflict cycle decision agreed at Vilnius.

This means looking at conflict in all its phases, including the early phase of early warning, conflict prevention and moving on to active conflict resolution. Implementation of the conflict cycle decision agreed in Vilnius last week will enable the OSCE to deepen its involvement in this area and strengthen its capacity to tackle conflict from prevention right through to resolution.

Having recently chaired a subsidiary body of the OSCE, the Forum for Security Co-operation, which deals with the military aspects of security in the OSCE area, we welcome the decision taken in Vilnius to update the so-called "Vienna Document", which provides for an exchange of information on arms control and military matters. A basis has now been created for further progress and we will work with the FSC chairs for 2012 to build on this platform.

Another key area of work for the OSCE is the efforts to address transnational threats such as drug trafficking, cyber security and terrorism. Unfortunately, agreement was only achieved on a chapeau decision in this area and further work covering such areas as policing, drugs, cyber security and counter-terrorism will be needed next year. The Irish chairmanship will reflect on how to take up these issues in 2012 and will bring forward proposals in due course for consideration by the participating states. It is necessary for us to obtain consensus of the agenda which we will pursue. There are areas in which we can give a particular push but the requirement for consensus is quite an important organisational principle in the OSCE and there is relatively restricted room for manoeuvre for each chairmanship.

Within the economic and environmental dimension, Ireland's core theme for the so-called Economic and Environmental Forum, which will culminate in Prague next year, will be the promotion of security and stability through good governance. As the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, outlined in our national statement at the Vilnius meeting, Ireland firmly believes that weak and ineffective governance undermines economic development and exposes states to greater security risks.

Two preparatory conferences will be held on the governance topic prior to the forum in Prague in September. The first conference will take place in February in Vienna, at which the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, will deliver the opening address. This conference will focus on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing. The second conference is scheduled to take place in Dublin Castle from 23 to 24 April and it will focus on efforts to combat corruption and strengthen socio-economic development across the entire OSCE region. It will be an opportunity to highlight the work of our Criminal Assets Bureau as a model for other OSCE member states. Corporate governance and its ability to create a favourable business environment will also feature. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy John Perry, have agreed to address this conference.

As chair, Ireland will work with others to promote lasting settlements to a number of unresolved conflicts in the OSCE area, including those which involve Moldova and the breakaway territory of Transdniestria, Georgia and its breakaway entities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan in regard to Nagorno-Karabakh. These are the three key frozen conflicts, as they are sometimes called, or protracted conflicts. They are residues of the break-up of the former Soviet Union and neighbouring states in the late 1990s and they are still high on the agenda for the OSCE. When we talk about conflict resolution efforts undertaken by the OSCE, nowadays it tends to focus on those three issues. In previous years it also involved conflict situations in the western Balkans but it tends now to be the two Caucasus region issues and the Transdniestria-Moldova issue.

As is usual practice, the Tánaiste, as chair-in-office, has appointed two special representatives to assist him in regard to specific conflicts. Mr. Pádraig Murphy, a former senior diplomat whose career has included appointments as ambassador to the former Soviet Union, Germany, Spain and Japan, will be a special representative for the south Caucasus, dealing in particular with Georgia, although he will also have a secondary role in regard to Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr. Erwan Fouere, who retired earlier this year as EU special representative and head of delegation to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, will be a special representative for Moldova, dealing with the efforts to resolve the long-standing dispute with the breakaway region of Transdniestria. Ambassador Fouere, who joined the European Commission in 1973 and is an Irish national, was the EU's head of delegation to FYROM, Mexico, South Africa and Slovenia in the course of his career.

Regarding Moldova and Transdniestria, we warmly welcomes the resumption of the formal OSCE five plus two talks, as they are called, the first round of which took place in early December in Vilnius. I will not go into detail on them at this stage but the five plus two format is a set of states which are most directly involved with the Moldova-Transdniestria issue and it is within that framework that we hope to achieve progress over the coming year. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, confirmed in our statement at the Vilnius meeting that Ireland stands ready to build on the momentum that has been recently achieved and we look forward to welcoming the parties to a follow-up meeting likely to take place in Ireland next year.

The situation in Georgia remains of concern and in this regard we strongly support the Geneva discussions. This is the only format in which all the parties to the Georgia conflict come together at regular intervals and have dialogue with each other. The so-called Geneva talks have not been making much progress but nevertheless they are a valued resource because it is only there that all the parties engage with each other. These discussions are crucial in terms of finding a way forward which all the parties can support. We also commend the continuing work of the OSCE's so-called Minsk Group in addressing the long-running dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh and we look forward to working closely with that group next year.

As indicated by the Tánaiste, in supporting these efforts, we will draw from our own experience of conflict resolution in the context of the Northern Ireland peace process, to encourage progress and facilitate engagement by all of the parties in the various conflict situations. In this regard, a one-day conference is planned for 27 April next at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, which will focus on Northern Ireland as a case study and will aim to draw on common themes which perhaps are applicable to conflict situations in the OSCE area.

The key calendar event next year - the big showpiece event - will be the ministerial meeting which will be a gathering of all foreign ministers from the OSCE participating states. This is scheduled to take place from 6 to 7 December in Dublin. Last week the equivalent meeting took place in Vilnius. It represents the main opportunity to agree ministerial decisions in the various policy priority areas. This will involve participation by all 56 member states and by 12 partner states - these tend to be countries in the Mediterranean region - at foreign minister level. It will be the largest gathering ever of foreign ministers to take place in Ireland. Currently, an e-tender process is under way to decide the venue for this event.

I hope I have not taken too much time to make this introductory presentation. Ireland, in chairing the OSCE, will work hard to pursue the principles and aims of the organisation. We plan to maintain a balanced approach across each of the three dimensions. As we said in the national statement made in Vilnius, it will be an honour for Ireland to make a tangible contribution to the promotion of European peace and security - European to be understood in a very broad sense - and we all look forward to this challenge.

I thank Mr. David Donoghue for his thorough and informative presentation to members of the committee. It is a great challenge for our country in 2012 but there is no doubt that we will be ready for the challenge. It puts Ireland centre stage on the world map.

Glacaim leis an méid atá a ráite agus cuirim fáilte roimh na daoine atá anseo chun an ábhar seo a phlé. The comprehensive outline was interesting and, as a relatively new member of the OSCE, I look forward to seeing the progress Ireland will make. It is an opportunity for us to highlight the experience, talent and skills within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Regarding the main conflict areas and Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, from a recent visit to Baku my understanding is that much progress has been made on this issue. My information is that a little bit more flexibility or better chemistry between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan might be sufficient to get it across the line. Do the delegates intend using the experience of the former Taoiseach Mr. Bertie Ahern and of Mr. Tony Blair, who played such a part in the Basque country recently? Leaders who have been through these situations are sometimes able to strike a chord or make a connection that might not be done by those not directly involved in the political field.

The delegates referred to ongoing talks in Georgia in which little progress has been made. From talking to people into Tbilisi, the Russian involvement in occupying part of Georgia and its influence on the reaction of people there is a barrier to progress on that issue. Can the delegates suggest particular initiatives to encourage Russia to play a more constructive and positive role?

I note two former ambassadors are specifically targeting areas. I presume they are on pensions from the public service. Are there salaries attached to these positions? This issue is very topical for appointees who are on State pensions. Perhaps the delegates can let us know the position with regard to them.

Regarding human rights, which is a fundamental part of the objectives of the OSCE, are we undermined as a credible promoter of human rights and particularly freedom of expression and freedom of religion, where there are threats from the current Government to break the seal of confession, which would amount to a major breach of the whole principle of freedom of religion? Will this have any ramifications for us in our role as a credible party to that position?

This is a great honour for Ireland and we have a major role because of our reputation in the area of human rights and the way in which we have worked in other countries in Africa and south-east Asia. The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has been going on for long. Do the delegates hope that, under the chairmanship of Ireland, some resolution might be sought?

My other question concerns Kosovo. Serbian accession to the EU has been put on hold and I see that country will take up the chair in 2015. They may be talking the talk regarding peace in Kosovo but they do not recognise Kosovo, which is a basic matter. Will this be included on the agenda?

I am a huge fan and supporter of the OSCE and ODIHR. The Secretary General appeared before this committee several weeks ago and appears a fine, young, energetic and talented gentleman. It strikes me that the OSCE is not well known in the West. People often think one is talking about the OECD and adding ODIHR makes one wonder where in the world we are. It raises questions about the structure, the range of involvement and the financing and funding of both organisations, one of which is in Warsaw and the other is in Vienna. I know the OSCE is widely recognised in countries such as Moldova and Kyrgyzstan, where it has monitored so many elections and areas of conflict. People can identify with the OSCE through its five sub-regional offices. As a world body with such an important range of functions and roles, can the delegates enlighten me as to whether it is structurally sustainable? Some members of this committee have announced themselves as new members of the OSCE Parliament. The young Secretary General is struggling for finances and funding.

I refer to the funding and the vast range of issues in which the organisation must involve itself. The rotating chairmanship will be taken up this year by Deputy Eamon Gilmore, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who happens to be the leader of the Labour Party and the Tánaiste. Dublin City Council elects a Lord Mayor every year and sometimes one remembers the Lord Mayor for the duration of the term of office before it fades very quickly. Is it a sustainable structure and is anyone doing serious discussions about consolidating the structure in future? What is the major source of funding for this organisation, which has such ambitions to expand and to engage in a vast range of areas? It will be a wonderful year and I wish Ireland well on this 12 month chairmanship. I wonder about its structure and whether it needs more rapid restructuring.

On the face of it, it is an honour for Ireland to chair the OSCE in the year ahead. It will raise our profile internationally. We have had our own conflict resolution process over past years but one cannot translate a set of circumstances in one conflict resolution process into another. The delegates know that much better than I do. However, the OSCE has a major job to do in terms of telling its story. It is overshadowed by the UN, NATO and the EU, with its new external action service led by Commissioner Ashton. Perhaps that will be a task for the year ahead. A number of the people on the committee met the leader of the organisation in the recent past and conveyed the same idea, that there may be a task to talk about the work of the organisation and to promote the organisation and the valuable work it does in conflict resolution and other areas in security and cooperation.

There are two prominent areas of conflict that have the potential for progress. We recently had a delegation from the Turkish and Kurdish sides appear before us at the Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation and we had a very worthwhile engagement with them. It strikes me there may be potential for progress in resolving the situation there. I do not know what the role of the OSCE would be, it is not mentioned in the presentation but I presume it is on the radar. It was clear to me both sides want to learn. They visited Belfast, Dublin and Britain to learn from our conflict and we should offer all possible assistance, with the caveat that one conflict resolution process cannot be translated directly into another conflict situation.

The Basque peace process has seen positive developments recently and it would be nice to take it home. There is a new Government in Spain and while this would be an immensely different process, it is clear we have finally reached the stage where the Basques have moved away from violence as a means of achieving their objectives. That is welcome but there is no doubt the concerns of the Basque people must be listened to. Those groups who represented the more determined section of the Basque people for independence performed well in the general election so there must be an encouragement of those who have moved towards peaceful resolution, as there was in Ireland. A process of reconciliation is needed and I invite the delegation to outline how they envisage the role of the OSCE in the Basque peace process, as well as in the Turkish-Kurdish process.

There are two important meetings taking place at the same time. My questions are currently being answered in the House.

The Deputy can be very quick.

That was not my intention, I intended to point out the need for co-operation in the Oireachtas to ensure important meetings do not clash with the Order of Business or Question Time.

I congratulate our guests for the presentation and outline of Ireland's influence in the future. It is hugely important, a classic example of a small European country, surrounded by people with various vested interests, both economic and social. This is a great time to exert ourselves and show the rest of the world what we can do in particular circumstances. We have the capacity to do that and can influence events far beyond our shores.

I am not sure of the choice of the acronym ODIHR. It sounds like someone who has had a bad headache sighing at its persistence. I suggest such acronyms be looked at with a view to ensuring they do not mean different things in different jurisdictions. It can draw ridicule or have a simple, direct meaning.

I wish to refer to conflict prevention, post-conflict rehabilitation and providing leadership. I would also add identification of impending conflict before it occurs. That would be the most important issue of all those that have affected Europe and the wider world in recent years, namely, the ability to identify a potential conflict before it happens. This is very important in the diplomatic world. Over the past 15 to 20 years countless areas of conflict seem to have sprung up overnight with little or no forewarning.

We often look for a steering view on certain subjects, such as that of a former president or prime minister who may be serving a prison sentence for some reason. We feel we have constructive comment to offer on such issues but we do not know which side is the correct side. We still require feedback on such situations because there are two stories in every situation. Infamously not so many years ago, there was a huge conflict in Somalia with massive loss of life. Very few people tracked back to the origins of that conflict. They were mostly propagandist; hatred was generated to feed into people's feelings and concerns over a long period. The consequences were there for all to see, something we must all be aware of. References were made to human rights and racism and other factors, so I compliment the group for that.

Of all the issues likely to be of importance in future, we must be brought up to date on observance of rules and regulations, like governance, and recognition of boundary disputes, and observance of issues that might arise in places like Bosnia and the western Balkans, where there are post-conflict requirements. This should be done by those who are involved in the area. This presents a great opportunity for ongoing, constructive reliable sources of information to inform the wider community and would give the ability to alert the rest of the world about what is likely to happen in any such situation. I will not go into the economics of the European scene but that could fall in that category as well.

I am not a member of this committee so I will confine myself to commenting. I thank Mr. David Donoghue for his marvellous presentation. Because we are members of the committee, we have a bird's eye view of the excellent work the OSCE is doing. This is a great opportunity for Ireland. It poses a challenge but all members will be up for it. I want to see us put our unique stamp on the chairmanship. I disagree with Deputy Mac Lochlainn, best practice in Northern Ireland can be applied to other areas where conflict arises. We can learn from Northern Ireland. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel and people are the same the world over. I look forward to working with everyone.

I welcome the delegation and thank it for the presentation. Deputy Byrne mentioned Irish people's awareness of the OSCE. I have some awareness of it but no great knowledge and I wonder how many Members of the Oireachtas have a detailed knowledge of its work. That might be a challenge for the group because it is an opportunity for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to engage the Oireachtas and the Irish people in the role of the OSCE. Some years ago I attended one of its annual meetings and was struck by the tendency at the time for the US to dominate the proceedings. One morning we were voting through various motions, one of which was on Greece, with which we were somewhat uncomfortable. The former Fianna Fáil Deputy, Seán Ardagh, was with me and we decided that, to hell, we would vote against it. The consternation we caused by two Mickey Mouse votes in hundreds highlighted the expectation on everybody to support certain elements of the organisation. I raise that point to stress the opportunity for Ireland to be independent in its approach to the chairmanship of the organisation. We should assert our neutrality through this. Neutrality is somewhat sidelined, but this is an opportunity to bring our neutrality to bear on the development of the organisation.

There is some food for thought for Mr. Donoghue. The questions he has got this afternoon may prove more difficult than the ones he will get during the chairmanship of the OSCE next year.

Mr. David Donoghue

I will attempt to respond to the questions members have been kind enough to put. My colleague Mr. Frank Cogan will come in on some of them. Senator Walsh asked about Nagorno-Karabakh and his recent visit to Baku. This is undoubtedly one of the most stagnant conflicts, as mentioned by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan. While it has been inactive for many years, in the past year or so the Russian President tried to mediate by bringing the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan together under his auspices but, frankly, there was no perceptible movement. There is always the risk of violence in that conflict because there is a so-called line of contact within Nagorno-Karabakh between the area controlled by Armenia and the other area controlled by Azerbaijan. There is always the risk of sniper activity along this line and dozens of lives have been lost in recent years in that way. At the moment the situation is quiet but there is a degree of tension and it is an area in which we would very much like to achieve progress under the Irish chairmanship. To some extent it depends on the diplomatic efforts made by the Minsk Group to which I referred earlier. This is one area in which making progress is contracted out to an international group which is chaired by the US, Russia and France. The three chairs of this group will be in Dublin this week. The role for Ireland will be to work very closely with this Minsk Group to see what chances may exist to bring the two sides a bit closer together this year. We will certainly be ambitious going into it, but we will also be realistic about what we might be able to achieve as the months go by.

Deputy Neville is absolutely right about asserting our neutrality as it were. We would think of it more as an honest broker role. In a way this was why Ireland was asked to take on the chairmanship in the first place. We did not put ourselves forward for the role. We were asked a number of years ago by - I can honestly say - the most important players in the organisation. It was important that both the US and Russia had confidence in Ireland's ability as an honest broker. The Government at the time took a decision that we would take on the chairmanship and we were received with acclaim. We did not stand for the post, we were voted in by the membership. At the moment we enjoy the confidence of the two main sides - if I can put it like that - east and west. We hope we can use that as leverage during the year in the efforts we make whether it is on Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh or Transnistria.

Added to that is the particular experience we have gained through the Northern Ireland peace process. In that regard I agree with both Deputies Ann Phelan and Mac Lochlainn. The Northern Ireland peace process gave us insights into ways in which it is possible to build common ground to find ways through a stalemate. Some of those lessons may be transferable and some perhaps are not. I had a small involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process and I remember we learned from the South Africa peace process. For example, we learned a number of specific lessons on negotiating approaches, which turned out to be useful in the Northern Ireland process. Without wishing to imply we have a one-size-fits-all approach, there may still be enough lessons which those involved in other conflicts can find useful and we want to explore that during the year. We also bring with us a certain reputation, I suppose. The Northern Ireland peace process has been a successful example of conflict resolution. It obviously was not to our credit alone. Two governments were involved, the British and Irish Governments, in addition to the political parties in Northern Ireland. It may be for consideration as to whether there is a role for individual leaders who were involved in that. In general terms we feel it is useful to bring the people from the conflict areas into contact with the lessons we have gathered. How we do that and with what players is another matter.

On human rights, I will pass on one particular invitation from Senator Walsh, if he does not mind.

I would have thought Mr. Donoghue would have had a view on it.

Mr. David Donoghue

Let us just say that we have a very strong reputation in the area of human rights. There is obviously room to debate individual matters. The Senator asked about the two personal representatives. These are not full-time members of the OSCE team which we have in Dublin and Vienna. These are part-time appointments essentially to focus on specific issues. The ambassador, Mr. Pádraig Murphy, is in receipt of a pension. He will be paid next year on a pro-rata basis depending on the number of days he works and will not have a salary in that sense. He is not a full member of the team. The ambassador, Mr. Fouere, is a retired member of the European Commission and so he will not be drawing a salary but will merely get expenses. We have been very conscious of the need to run this chairmanship with the absolute minimum of resources. We have been acutely aware of that from the moment we started planning for it. That would be our motto as we progress.

We need to have the best people we can get so I can understand why Mr. Donoghue would seek that expertise. It would bring the OSCE into disrepute if it were subsequently discovered that people were getting a full salary even on a per diem basis while at the same time drawing a pension.

Mr. Donoghue has answered that matter. The person is just getting expenses. We can move on from it.

Mr. David Donoghue

Deputy Eric Byrne asked about the overall image of the OSCE in Ireland. He is quite right in saying there is a huge amount to do. It is less well known than almost any other major international organisation. This partly goes back to the fact that everything depends on consensus, which means that the number of dramatic decisions to be taken is limited because the issues on which one will get unanimity among the 56 member states - with Russia on the one side, the US on the other and a range of views in between - are limited. A great deal of valuable work is done behind the scenes by the individual organisations in respect of thematic issues such as improving media freedom, electoral freedom, etc. It is difficult to convey this to the public because it does not involve day-to-day financial benefits for Ireland. There are no immediate tangible benefits. However, valuable work continues to be done and we would like to evaluate how we might raise the profile of the organisation during the coming year.

From time to time people ask if we could make more rapid progress if the consensus principle were removed or diluted and replaced by a principle of majority rule. Inevitably, this would lead to an erosion of the OSCE's capacity because certain countries would drift away. The OSCE's value is that it brings together every country from Canada to Russia. Even if progress seems slow, it is perhaps important that such progress should be approved by all of the states involved. A major challenge has been set and it is one of which we are conscious. We must find a way to raise the profile of the OSCE during the next 12 months.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn referred to Turkey and the Kurdish problem and also the Basque peace process. It is open to any country to put any conflict issue on the agenda of the OSCE. The difficulty lies in reaching a consensus in the context of taking action on such issues. For many years, Russia tried to raise the situation in Northern Ireland as an OSCE issue. To be honest, this was a tongue-in-cheek action on Russia's part. The latter did not like the West to be constantly lecturing it about issues in its backyard such as those relating to Chechnya, etc. The Russians liked to be in a position to point the finger at Britain and Ireland and ask what they were doing about, as they put it, "the human rights outrage" in the North. The answer provided was simple - the British and Irish Governments were working together to solve the problem and, as we know, they brought the peace process to a successful conclusion. We would not have wanted the OSCE to become involved in finding a solution to a problem in respect of which we would have judged the Irish and British Governments to be best placed to deal with. Ireland would not have any problem with issues such as Turkey and its difficulties with the Kurdish people or the Basque problem being dealt with by the OSCE. However, my strong suspicion is that there would not be a consensus in respect of any of these matters.

There tends to be an understanding that the OSCE primarily addresses issues left over in the aftermath of the break-up of the Soviet Union. It was manifestly the case, for example, that there was violence and open war in Georgia in 2008. That remains an urgent issue which needs to be tackled. The position is the same in respect of Nagorno-Karabakh, where there is a risk of violence at any time. There is also a risk of violence in Transdniestria. As a result of the likelihood of violence, matters relating to these three territories tend to be given priority. I am of the view that a number of countries would state that there are a number of other frameworks within which the difficulties relating to Turkey and the Kurds could be addressed. The position is similar in respect of the Basque peace process.

No one raised the question of election monitoring in the context of the recent elections in Russia. I am aware that the OSCE has concerns in respect of the running of those elections. However, I will not ask Mr. Donoghue to comment on the disagreement between Mr. Putin and Ms Hilary Clinton.

Mr. David Donoghue

That is a very good point. It was the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, which issued a verdict on the recent elections to the Russian Duma. That office will also issue a finding on the forthcoming presidential election. ODIHR is at one remove from the chairman in office and it reaches its own independent views. However, the chairman in office would always be close to its view. In that sense, the Russian presidential elections will be of particular interest to us. The Tánaiste made clear last week that he fully agrees with what ODIHR stated. It is normal for countries throughout the OSCE region to accept election monitors. We presume that will be the case with Russia in respect of the presidential elections. We look forward to a constructive dialogue with Russia in so far as is possible. The forthcoming elections in Russia will probably be the most high profile with which we will be involved in monitoring during the year but elections will also take place elsewhere. It is perfectly possible for ODIHR to send missions to monitor elections in this country. The office was willing to do so in respect of a recent election - I cannot recall which one - but it stated that it was not of the view that Ireland warranted particular attention in this regard.

Mr. Frank Cogan

Senator Walsh inquired about Georgia. Of the three protracted conflicts to which reference has been made, this is the most recent. The last active phase of conflict in Georgia occurred in August 2008. Obviously, there are still enormous sensitivities in respect of that conflict. The Geneva process discussions are co-chaired by the chairman in office of the OSCE and the UN and involve Georgia, Russia, the US and the two territories, namely, Abkhazia, which is located in the north west, and South Ossetia, which is located in the north. Both of these territories are in dispute. We have begun to be involved in this matter already. A former Irish ambassador, Pádraig Murphy, observed the most recent round of the Geneva discussions. A further round is taking place this week. Mr. Murphy was also involved with the other strand of international assistance in the conflict, namely, the instant response and prevention mechanism, IRPM. This involved a series of meetings which took place on the border between Georgia and the two territories to which I refer. The purpose of the IRPM is to try to defuse tensions arising from day-to-day incidents and we have already begun to be involved with it.

One of the reasons Mr. Murphy was chosen for this task is because he speaks fluent Russian. He is assisted in his task by another Irish diplomat who is based in Vienna and who also speaks fluent Russian. It is essential to have the capacity to speak the Russian language in order to be able to take an active and effective part in the discussions. The discussions relating to Georgia are quite difficult and tense. The main objective to date has been to keep the sides talking. In that context, the Geneva negotiations are very important. These negotiations take place four or five times per year. There are two working groups, one which deals with issues of principle and another which deals with practical issues such as confidence-building measures, etc. The objective is to try to stimulate a constructive dialogue between the various sides in order to try to progress slowly towards reconciliation.

I wish to correct one point, particularly as I might be shot if I do not do so. The statement to which I referred was issued jointly by the OSCE and ODIHR. I was involved with the advisory group with the president of the OSCE and I was present in Russia for the recent elections. Representatives from the OSCE acted as long-term observers in advance of those elections. We received extremely good briefings from all of the Russian parties, even those which are not registered in Russia. The latter are debarred from registering and were unable to participate in the elections. We got the impression that one of the major concerns within the Russian Administration is the ethnic disparity in Russia and that the way they deal with the Caucasus and other central Asian states might have implications for internal issues, which is inhibiting to some extent the approach that might be taken by Moscow.

What about the Kosovo issue? Also, is Iran a member of the OSCE?

Mr. David Donoghue

No.

I ask Mr. Donoghue to respond briefly on the question of the funding and whether the structure needs reform.

When the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade came before the committee I put it to him that he called in all the ambassadors and asked them to reinforce their role in the international field to rebuild the image of Ireland but that there is a phenomenal team of unofficial ambassadors representing this country including short-term observers, STOs, and core team workers for the OSCE. I hope an event might be held, possibly in Iveagh House or elsewhere, at the start of the chairmanship to recognise that. I forgot to mention some of the excellent staff who do phenomenal work on election missions. The coming together of those people would be an important message to deliver to them in recognition of the sacrifices they make when they go on long-term or STO missions.

Mr. David Donoghue

I overlooked Deputy O'Sullivan's question about Kosovo earlier. I will take first the issue of its chairmanship. It has been agreed that there will be a package approach of Switzerland becoming the chair of the OSCE in 2014 and Serbia in 2015 but that agreement is subject to what is called a silence procedure. It means that if nobody objects within the next two months, that will happen. There has been a controversial discussion about that. Some countries believe Serbia must be kept under strict pressure, notably in the European Union context, in terms of giving it candidate status. The members saw the outcome of the European Council where it was decided not to give it a candidate status at this stage. In the same way, some countries had reservations about giving it the OSCE chair for 2015 but, taking it in the round, the feeling was that it can be expected to do a reasonable job in conjunction with Switzerland in the sense that the joint approach where Switzerland would be working closely with Serbia during its chairmanship would provide enough reassurance.

The Deputy asked if it will be an agenda item. Not in so many words. Western Balkans issues are always of interest to the OSCE and there is a strong OSCE field presence, as it is called. The largest office is in Kosovo but the difficulties between Serbia and Kosovo are being handled bilaterally and in the EU framework. There are no immediate plans to handle them in the OSCE primarily because other frameworks exist. Notably, Cathy Ashton's colleague, Robert Cooper, has been trying to defuse the tensions between Serbia and Kosovo which arose in northern Kosovo recently and there is now a better understanding relating to the way the border will be managed. That valuable work is going on in the EU framework. It is in the EU framework that a decision must be taken, and for the moment the OSCE does not need to be used for that topic.

Deputy Byrne is correct that the structure is fairly fragile in the OSCE. There is a small secretariat. Mr. Zanier, whom the members met recently, is the newly appointed head of that but the staff numbers are quite small and they rely on the chairman in office, which is now Ireland, to take many of the initiatives and to drive the organisation politically. It is fairly light and, therefore, there always must be doubts about what it can take on.

The budget is always hard fought and in terms of how the organisation is funded, it comes from member state contributions. In our case it is in the region of €1 million. That is just one example, and there are 56 countries. From one year to the next, therefore, it is not clear if one or other member state will try to block the budget to score a political point or to achieve a political purpose. The budget can be used as a political football, and that introduces a further note of uncertainty.

It is difficult to see member states being willing to put many more resources into the OSCE. Everybody is suffering under budget constraints. There has been a debate in recent years on how to refocus the work of the OSCE to ensure it fitted in better with other international organisations. The term used is the Corfu process because a debate about the future of the OSCE began under the Greek chairmanship of the OSCE some years ago in Corfu. That debate is continuing, and we hope to be part of it, in other words, proposing the way the OSCE could deliver added value and make a real contribution in specific areas to allow us persuade Governments to inject more resources into it. That debate is in progress, and much depends on how the bigger players choose to look at the OSCE. The Americans, for example, would have a strong human rights agenda but they might be slightly less committed to other areas. The Russians might have a strong military agenda in that they attach more importance to confidence building measures in the military area whereas they might have less interest in human rights activities. I am choosing those as two easy examples. Getting the entire organisation united around a single approach is difficult but nevertheless it is something we must do.

I appreciate the presence of Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Cogan at the meeting. Mr. Donoghue is not just political director of the OSCE, he is also political director of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I thank both men for attending and for their most informative presentation. It is clear that the OSCE chairmanship is a substantial responsibility which will require total commitment on the part of the Tánaiste, who will be out of the country a good deal during our period as chairmanship, the Irish parliamentary delegation, and the officials involved. We wish all of them well in their task and hope Ireland will have a successful chair before the next country takes over in 2013.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.50 p.m. and adjourned at 4 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 December 2011.
Top
Share