News

STATEMENT BY MR. DMITRY BALAKIN
DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION,
AT THE 1226th MEETING OF THE OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL
2 May 2019
On the OSCE Programme Outline

Mr. Chairperson,
Mr. Secretary General,
We have carefully studied the 2020 OSCE Programme Outline presented by you. We agree that the work of the OSCE executive structures should be based on their mandates and the decisions of the decision-making bodies. We also believe that the institutions and field presences should take account in their activities of the positions of all participating States. It is unacceptable for them to be guided by the priorities of certain groups while ignoring the proposals of other countries.
Unfortunately, once again in the work plans of the specialist institutions, particularly the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), we fail to see a response to the specific comments and proposals by Russia regarding a serious reorientation of the programmatic activities – for example, devising new programmes for safeguarding linguistic and educational rights, eliminating discrimination and intolerance towards Christians and Muslims, combating neo-Nazism and the glorification of Nazis and their accomplices, and other projects.
We fail to see an intention by the ODIHR to take urgent steps to upgrade its election observation methodology and practice, which should be based on agreed principles and regulations. Our proposals are in fact aimed at ensuring the full and balanced monitoring of the election process in all OSCE participating States without the appropriation of additional funds.
There is a need in general for a balance between the dimensions in the financing of the three OSCE baskets, correcting the unjustified bias towards the human dimension. The long overdue optimization of events in the human rights sphere will make possible considerable savings, which could be used to implement projects and programmes of topical interest in other areas of the OSCE’s work. And yet we have not seen any suitable suggestions for saving resources for these purposes in the ODIHR programme.
We call for adequate financing of the Secretariat, above all the structures devoted to combating new challenges and threats, developing economic co-operation and settling conflicts. The same applies to the promotion of the Structured Dialogue.As for the programme outline for the field presences, they do not contain plans for the gradual
winding-up of projects in those areas where the host countries have made substantial progress. The savings made through the termination of these programmes could be used for other purposes. There is a need in general to put into practice a strategy that would make it possible to move away from classic field presence
models towards new forms of co-operation between the OSCE executive structures and the host countries on specific projects. Moreover, the planning of the programmatic activities of field presences should be guided by the sovereign right of host countries to define the format and modalities of their interaction with the
OSCE.
We shall make specific comments and proposals on the work plans of each institution and field presence when their programme outlines are discussed. We look forward to hearing a substantive response to the comments made by us when the budget and the reports by the heads of the executive structures are discussed and considered in the Permanent Council.
Thank you for your attention.