Human Dimension Implementation Meeting Report for the Swedish OSCE network (29th-30th September 2011)
This year I had the precious opportunity to participate as a representative of the Swedish OSCE network to the HDIM in Warsaw for two days, 29th and 30th of September. This was interesting for me as I have been previously working for the Permanent Mission of Italy to the OSCE in Vienna, hence I had an insight of all the different OSCE activities and also of the most crucial aspects of them. This was my first time at the HDIM anyway, therefore I was very eager to see this year’s outcome and the discussions around the two topics I was most interested in: freedom of movement and the electoral observation.
On September the 29th the session started at 10 am with the discussion on the specifically selected topic of “Freedom of movement”. The participants were briefly addressed by Janez Lenarcic, the ODIHR Director, followed by the first introducer Dr Joanna Fomina, Coordinator of the Friendly EU Border project, who gave a first introduction of the issues at stake. In her introduction Dr Fomina touched numerous topics: the visa facilitation process, the multiple visas issue, the difficulties of getting visas due to the lack of consulates or embassies in certain countries, therefore forcing all those citizens who want to apply for a visa to travel to a third Country. This in particular has been seen as an indirect obstacle to leave the State.
News from the NGOs
NGOs from Kazakhstan denounced the extremely complicate procedure required to apply for a visa, seeing this as a hinder for a free cultural and scientific exchange. They expressed also concern for the denial of participating to international forums outside the Country, and denounced violation of the freedom of movement and assembly and the refusal of medical care to some Human Rights activists.
An Uzbek NGO denounced the existence of exit visas as a clear violation of the freedom of movement: in order to be able to leave their own country they’re required to apply for a visa and the complicated procedure required to get an exit visa often implies the systematic denial for Human Rights activists and journalists to leave the Country, as well as a waiting time ranging from 24 to 30 days.
Belarusian NGOs denounced numerous violations of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. They mentioned the existence of “black lists” (namely they called them KGB lists) where people were banned from entering the Country, no freedom of information, and existence of so called D lists where Human Rights activists are marked. Some activists denounced to have been kicked out of the Country while observing the elections. They also complained about the high cost of the visa and the inadequacy of existing consulates to apply for visas.
A South Ossetia and Abkhazian NGO denounced the illegal practice of forcing Georgian citizens resident in the occupied territory to renounce their citizenship in order to be given identity and travel documents from the occupying authority. This is, as far as I know, one of the typical “Russification strategies” adopted in many areas (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia)
Azeri NGO has denounced the Country to be closed to journalists during the elections and other Human Rights violations and limitations to fundamental freedoms.
The Norwegian Helsinki Committee called upon the western States to grant visas to Human Rights activist because they always are framed, threatened, harassed and rejected the visas in the Countries where they work. As I approached them during the break they told me that many Kazak and Uzbek activists were being registered by cameramen while speaking (presumably sent from their own government to “keep an eye on them”). As this is part of what we can do and have done in Sweden, I suggest we keep ourselves open for those people who have risked their lives, and compromised the ones of their family and friends, in order to let us know what happens in those Countries.
A Turkmen NGO denounced the denial of visas to student who wanted to study abroad, and referred that this same problem was encountered in Uzbekistan. They also called for consideration of the issue of people without a passport, which in their Country is a substantial amount of persons, who do not officially exist for the State and therefore have no access to health or other social services, but they also cannot move anywhere because they cannot even book a train or a bus. They are technically without residence and probably the only identification they have is the old Soviet passport. Lastly they called for a simplified procedure for the Schengen visa.
Finally, the Helsinki Human Rights Committee denounced violent Serbian leaders acting violent in Northern Kosovo on the 27 of September.
The position of Participating States:
The Russian Federation used their intervention to inveigh against “the invisible Schengen wall”, arguing that there is a difference of treatment when it comes to the freedom of movement and the other fundamental freedoms. They also referred to a Polish proposal to simplify the visa regime with the EU. I have heard this speech numerous times during my internship, and I can say that without doubt the Russians miss an essential argument: freedom of movement is intended as the freedom of individuals to travel without hinders within the Country they are living, not inside or outside other Countries (that is strictly dominion of each single state to decide upon). I therefore totally disagree with the “inequality between rights” they always try to underline for their own privilege. About the situation in Georgia they stated that their troops are there just for peacekeeping purposes.
The USA on the other side condemned without hesitation the existence of “exit visas”, calling directly into cause Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, accusing these states to violate the freedom of movement with their internal policy. They continued accusing Romania and the EU States in general of violating the rights of Roma and Sinti by not even recognizing their existence and added that also people without a citizenship should be helped.
Spain intervened to remind the Russian Federation that no EU policy or law violates the freedom of movement and remarking that the existence of entry visas is a national matter.
Belarus and partly Ukraine called for visa liberalization towards the Schengen area, in line with the Russian observations.
Serbia and Albania had a dispute on the recent events in Kosovo (just the 27th there was an unpleasant incident), and pretty much, in my opinion, went totally off topic, dragging in the dispute some other delegations as well.
Moldova brought up the Transnistrian conflict once again. The area is under military occupation and no people or goods are allowed to pass without the consent of the occupying authority. They remarked that this is not a frozen conflict but “full impunity” and called for the Russian troops to be withdrawn.
Norway spoke about their recent experience after the terrorist attacks saying that they of course have adopted a stricter border control but this is far away from a unilateral visa restriction.
On the right of reply list:
The USA clearly intervened to condemn the Serbian attack in Kosovo, reminding them that they are risking they’re candidature to the EU and exhorting them to respect Human Rights.
Kazakhstan denied all the allegations presented by the NGOs, claiming as a proof of this the presence of many activists from Kazakhstan to the HDIM (and yes, I must say there were many Kazakh NGOs at the Conference, nonetheless that does not prove to me that they are really a democratic regime).
Belarus argued that black lists exist in all Countries, even USA and EU, and continued saying that this is just a measure to prevent abuses from those people who are on the list when they leave the Country. They also complained of the high cost of the Schengen visa.
Serbia even though regretting the use of force proceeded with a “who started first” speech. They repeated that EU membership is of course crucial for them but it has been slowed down by the situation on the field, then they called into cause an intervention on behalf of the CPC and a UN monitoring mission as soon as possible, recalling resolution 1244. They also added that they will never recognize Kosovo.
Albania argued against the Serbian misinterpretation of the Resolution 1244, recalling the recognition of Kosovo.
Russia was calling upon the OSCE to be neutral in the dispute about Kosovo and they called for the UN resolutions in existence to lose the problem.
Georgia argued against the Russian declaration and accused once again the Federation of violating Human Rights in the occupied territories.
On the 30th of September the session started at 10 am with the specifically selected topic of “Democratic elections and electoral observation”. Already in the early morning I noticed a massive presence of representatives from the Russian Federation, as this is one of the most critical topics for them. NGOs were also present in a larger amount than the day before, as also some delegations had their specialists on electoral observation sitting in the first row. The session was introduced again by Amb. Janez Lenarcic, the ODIHR Director, who served as a moderator for this session. The introducer for this session was Beata Martin-Rozumilowicz, Head of the ODIHR Election Department.
When it comes to electoral observation there is definitely a strong divergence within the OSCE participating States. Some believe that it is one of the most important activities carried on by the ODIHR but some (for reasons not so difficult to understand) try to put into doubt the objectivity and accuracy of the OSCE observers. The debate during this session certainly underlined the different views on this matter.
News from the NGOs
A Polish NGO called upon their government and parliament to amend their electoral code, in order to respect art 8 of the Copenhagen Document.
Kazakh NGOs were probably the most numerous and active in the debate. They underlined many times that the electoral results in Kazakhstan have been totally planted. They consider the election just a show and they denounced a series of violations, like candidates deleted from the ballots, students expelled from college for not voting, people forced to vote in a certain way under threat. Parties were excluded from the vote through legal expedients. They called for the modification of the electronic voting procedure and for a multi-party representation before the upcoming elections. Some other NGOs stated that in Kazakhstan there is no right to vote, but an obligation to vote, people are literally dragged to cast their votes.
Azeri NGOs have criticized the elections in Azerbaijan and they denounced the violation of the freedom of Assembly.
A Tajik NGO for gender equality has asked for improving the participation of women in the elections, especially in the presidential elections. They suggested that a similar system of quotes like the one existing in Kirghizstan could be of help to achieve this result. Other suggestions were additional media coverage and funds for those women who wish to run for elections.
Ukrainian NGOs have denounced the undemocratic results of the elections in Ukraine, highlighting that the opposition was harassed, isolated and many candidates were framed for crimes they hadn’t commit.
Turkmen NGOs have expressed their concern about the opposition being able to re-enter the Country, seeing a contradiction between facts and words on behalf of their government.
The National Forum for Ossetia spoke against Georgia, calling for respect of the CES Convention and asking to allow Ossetia to hold their elections. This NGO intervention was counteracted by another NGO who spoke about ethnic cleansing against Georgians in South Ossetia.
An Armenian NGO has criticized the ODIHR to have deemed the elections fair in their Country, while in reality the elections were not genuine and were generally affected by corruption. They also would like to see more women involved in the electoral process.
The Russian Institute of Electoral Law clearly stated that during electoral observations different standards have been adopted and therefore it is hard to identify who is wrong and who is right, but that nonetheless, analyzing the ODIHR reports they have come to the conclusion that the ODIHR observation is arbitrary. They also raised the question of the costs of electoral observation which according to them is too high. This attempt to slander ODIHR is pretty much in line with the Russian Federation usual comments.
I´ve noticed that several NGOs from Kazakhstan were threatening and slandering other NGOs who spoke negatively about the elections in their Country. They said that they were not telling the truth and that Kazakhstan was a perfectly democratic Country where no such thing as false elections exists. To my eye it looked almost as if they were put there (and possibly paid) to intimidate those other NGOs who dared to speak the truth. This is a very worrying signal, given the fact that this was done in plain face of all Participating States and NGOs to an OSCE Human Rights Conference.
Surprisingly no NGOs from EU Countries took the floor except for an NGO from Budapest working for the right of people with disabilities (who also organized a side event). They criticized Spain for not granting accessibility to the disable when voting.
The position of Participating States:
A very long intervention has been given by Switzerland, as chair of the OSCE Human Dimension Committee, where the electoral observation’s issues have been discussed in order to achieve a compromise about standards, principles and methodology to be chosen for the Electoral Observation Missions. The speech was aimed in particular at clarifying some misinterpretation of the terminology on Electoral Observation, and I believe from what I have seen before the session started, it was in a certain measure aimed at mitigating the Russian Federation’s perpetual rant about the ODIHR and Electoral Observation’s “double standards”.
For those who are not familiar with this issue, I will try to shortly clarify what this is all about. For obvious convenience of the Russian Federation, their delegation is trying, without success so far, to push for a Convention, a legal binding document to define the standards of electoral observations, subtly, in order to lower them. In this case, the speech given by Switzerland clearly states that if the proposal of a binding document will be taken into consideration this shall not affect negatively the current achievements (“namely that existing standards are to be consolidated, not lowered. “).
For those who are more interested in the details of the proposal, I suggest to go and read the intervention directly on the HDIM website: http://www.osce.org/odihr/83241.
The Russian Federation, who took the word right after Switzerland, started as anticipated with the aforementioned big rant on the Convention. They proceeded with an accurate critic of the ODIHR especially on the electoral observations’ process. They said that the observers always notice a worsening of the situation, that they don’t have a unique “standard” (-of course their interpretation of it-) and that the observers often exceed their mandate. Nonetheless they are planning to invite the ODIHR to observe the Duma election. They used all their ability in rhetoric to convince the audience to be on their side.
The USA denounced the fraudulent elections in Belarus, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. They urged for free elections in Georgia and commended Moldova and Macedonia on their good behavior. On the other side they also criticized Armenia and said that Albania has a lot to improve. USA also underlined the importance of pre and post-electoral observation, as well as follow ups. Critics to the Russian position were also present in their speech. They defended the methodology and objectivity of ODIHR.
Sweden was delivering the statement on behalf of the EU, a very moderate statement as usual, but with a strong call to not undermine the ODIHR electoral observation’s role. http://www.osce.org/odihr/83285
Germany delivered the statement on behalf of the EU in the afternoon session. In this statement they clearly mentioned violations on behalf of Kazakhstan, Belarus, and marked approval for the ODIHR electoral observations in the Mediterranean Partners for Cooperation if they so wish.
Kazakhstan completely denied that their elections were not genuinely democratic and assessed that the ODIHR observation was not referring the truth, saying that the report contradicts itself in several points and questioning the count of the voting stations. They once again repeated that if so many NGOs from their Country are at the Conference it is obviously a proof that they are a democratic Country. They also stated that voting is not compulsory in their Country and that they have organized forums for the civil society to discuss the elections.
Tajikistan stated that they are doing all they can to achieve more open and transparent elections.
Norway stated the essential added value of ODIHR in assessing the status of democracy also before the elections and calls to not reduce the ODIHR electoral observation process or the number of observers.
Armenia stated all the efforts they are doing to improve the electoral process.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe intervened to say that they adopted the same criteria of the ODIHR when observing elections.
Belarus tried to defend themselves from the allegations of the NGOs quoting a number of actions undertaken to improve the electoral code. They strongly criticized, in line with the Russian Federation, the ODIHR methodology which is not codified in any of the PC documents. They also think that the number of observers sent was way exaggerate and they called for the adoption of their joint proposal with the Russian Federation on the electoral observations, in order to avoid “double standards”.
Ukraine explained that some reforms are on their way and that right now they are awaiting a draft from the Venice Commission to be adopted, and that they are committed to implement the OSCE recommendations.
Azerbaijan called into cause the hard transition from the Soviet era as an excuse for their difficulties; they added that they face the major problem of refugees constituting 20% of their population. They also stated that the NGOs are too small to be able to cover the elections accurately, and critics are just derived from ignorance. They are anyway trying to move towards democracy.
Uzbekistan clearly stated to be a democratic regime and refused the insults received (according to them) from the NGOs. They responded to the NGOs accusing them to be ignorant and stating that the OSCE should adopt some ethic guidelines to prevent this to happen in the future.
A very interesting part was when the Norwegian ambassador came to speak in the beginning of the afternoon session. He spoke about the follow up to the ODIHR electoral observations in Norway, and apparently they even had to modify the Constitution to comply with the ODIHR recommendations. Other observations concerned the ballots not being sealed (I have been referred that the same happens in Sweden!) and the impossibility of candidates to apply for polling committees. They also had a pilot of electronic voting. For the whole intervention: http://www.osce.org/odihr/83270
This speech was very inspiring and I think it served as a good example for all the other delegations, especially for those who continuously argue that the ODIHR has a double standard!
In conclusion the topic of electoral observations has been as usual very controversial and I believe there is no consensus among the OSCE participating States to achieve a PC document any time soon. Nonetheless Electoral Observations is and remains one of the lighthouses of democracy, especially in the Central Asian States. In my opinion there is a strong added value to this conference represented by all the NGOs who are actively taking part and reporting what they see and I’d like to thank the OSCE network of Sweden for being able to give a voice to all those people that may not be with us at the Conference next year.
Publicerad den 19 oktober, 2011
