Dear Mr. Chairman,
This year is a landmark year for the OSCE Forum on Security Cooperation (FSB) in a number of parameters. Today we are celebrating the thousandth meeting of our autonomous decision-making body, and in September, under the Belgian presidency, we will celebrate its 30th anniversary. These round dates provide us with an opportunity to share assessments of the current state of affairs at the Forum and its future prospects.
Initially, the FSB was conceived by its founders as the main and, in fact, the only pan-European structure responsible for military and political stability in Europe. It was assumed that this stability would be ensured through negotiations on arms control and confidence- and security-building measures. The Forum coped with this task perfectly. In the 1990s, a whole array of fundamental documents that make up the so-called “military-political tools of the OSCE” was developed.
Nevertheless, in recent years, we have seen deliberate attempts by a number of Western countries to blur the military-political foundations of the Forum. Today they persistently squeeze “gender” into his agenda, tomorrow – climate, and what will happen the day after tomorrow! Will our platform even survive to this point, if the Polish OSCE Chairmanship in Office already offers to transfer key issues of the FSB to the general political body – the Permanent Council? We are decidedly not satisfied with such a prospect, and we are following with bewilderment these destructive “creative impulses” of a number of participating States and the current Presidency.
The “structured dialogue” on current and future security risks and challenges in the OSCE region, which is developing independently but thematically related to the activities of the Forum, launched at the Hamburg Ministerial Council in 2016, deserves special mention. For five years, the participating States have been painstakingly engaged in dialogue, trying to find common ground on issues of transparency, reducing military danger and preventing incidents. And now, overnight, all the developments, initiatives and ideas – all that we have been saving up for half a decade – are simply proposed to be given to another negotiating track. How do the current Finnish chairmanship of the “structured dialogue”, and its predecessors – Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain – feel about the fact that they actually want to assign the role of an “interest club” to this platform with an empty agenda, blurred work schedule and unclear results? We are saying that this Polish initiative does not have any legal and political framework. It is unable to add value to either the military-political dimension of the OSCE in general, or the SD in particular.
Of course, we can endlessly “restart” the dialogue on the future of European security in the OSCE and “produce” new negotiating platforms. But it is important to understand: the more formats and participants there are, the greater the danger of slipping into endless procrastination and blurting out the essence of the dialogue. Apparently, some people really want it. In our opinion, it is much more important to use the available resources provided to us by the Forum and the “structured dialogue” created for professional conversation and reaching specific agreements at the level of military experts. It is important to restore their proper role in European affairs. That’s what we all need to focus on.
Mr. Chairman,
In recent weeks, the Russian Federation has actually demonstrated its readiness to solve key problems of European security. Our country will not allow the United States and NATO to decide for us what is a threat to Russia and what is not. For years we have been observing alarming trends related to the expansion of the alliance, the deployment of a missile defense system, the creation of new foreign facilities and the deployment of multinational troops on the territories of other countries near our borders. We assume that many people are quite satisfied with this and they feel quite comfortable in such an environment. But this does not apply to Russia. And if we really proceed from the fact that security in Europe is indivisible, these concerns must be properly taken into account and think about the steps that could eliminate them.
Our priority is negotiations, first of all, with the United States, as well as with NATO, within which we seek long-term legally binding security guarantees. We do not exclude that if there is some progress and if a consensus decision is made, it is the FSB that can contribute to de-escalating tensions and strengthening the military-political foundations of European security at subsequent stages. However, this requires taking care of the heritage of the Forum, consistently strengthening its foundation, returning the agenda to the military-political “origins” and thinking about which initiatives within the framework of a “structured dialogue” could be productively developed on the agenda of the Working Groups “A” or “B” of the FSB. I repeat: today, practical steps are required, not theoretical reflections. At the same time, let me remind you that possible changes to the Forum’s mandate, as suggested here, can be made, if necessary, only by a consensus decision of the participating States.
Mr. Chairman,
These are, in the most general terms, our ideas regarding the restoration of the proper role of the OSCE FSB in European affairs. In these areas, the Russian delegation is ready to carry out persistent work, in which we invite all colleagues interested in overcoming the negative trends of recent years to participate.
If you continue to pretend that “everything is fine”, then in the next thousand meetings of the FSB risks facing a crisis situation. This cannot be allowed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please attach the text of the statement to the Journal of the Day.
