Transcripts For CSPAN2 Wilson Center Discussion On Europe Security 20240711

Jane todays event is sponsored by our tpwhrobal Europe Program under the direction of our newly minted director, dan hamilton, who will take overing moring this program for me in a little while. Its also sponsored by our kennon institute in partnership with the u. S. Helsinki ommission. Dan jones the Wilson Center after holding positions in the u. S. Department of state, including notably, assistant secretary for european affair responseable for nato, the osce and transatlantic security issue os they have in ordericbaltic and balkan affairs. He also retains an affiliation and taught for a while at johns hopkins. Our conversation today marks an important milestone. 30 years ago today, the charter of paris for the new europe was signed by 34 european and north american country, symbolizing an end to the 40year division of europe into two possible camps. It formally signaled the end of the cold war and set the osce, or the csce, the conference on security and cooperation in europe, on the course of becoming the consensus based Security Group we now call the osce, the organization for security and cooperation in europe. Here at the Wilson Center were good at understanding history and how history shapes policy and we have a deep connection to the osce through our programs like the kennon institute and now our global Europe Program, through our former Wilson Center physical lows, including ambassador wolfgang issinger, who is chair of the conference where i serve on his committee. Through, among others, former Helsinki Commission chief of staff Spencer Oliver who is on this call and will participate later in the program and frankly through my role and the role of our first speakers as members of congress who remain close to the osce and i must say call out a former chairman of the Helsinki Commission, good friend of all f ours, steny hoyer. Our speakers today will delve into the origins of the group but also the critical roleplayed by congress in the development of the principles undermining the helsinki final act in 1975, the charter of paris in 1990 and the creation of the osce. As i mentioned, having visited the osce personally myself, somebody id like to recognize who i believe is on this call is lamberto danae, former secretary yen of the osce. We are still involved with lamberto and he headlines a number of events at Wilson Center, its very good to see you, my friend. But having said all that good stuff, while 30 years does call for celebration, the osce now faces significant challenges. Freedom is still elusive for many europeans, thats not a secret. The continent is not fully at peace. Thats also not a secret. And europe is again wracked by divisions in part exemplified by the current leadership crisis within the osce, about which well hear a lot. Looking forward, what are the prospects for a more whole, free, and atpeace europe . What is the future of the osce . And what is the role and responsibility of the United States which will be under new leadership in a very short period of time . To discuss these issues i am delighted that we will begin with two key members of congress who can speak to the constructive and bipartisan role that congress has historically and currently played with respect to the osce. To start us off will be my former colleague, senator ben cardin of maryland, who is in his third term as senator but prior to that served in the house, where i was, for a number of years where he represented marylands third Congressional District. Ben has spoken at the Wilson Center many times, most recently in 2018 for an event titled rule of law a linchpin of u. S. Foreign policy, hes been a commission thorne u. S. Helsinki commission since 1993, serving as chairman of the commission in the 1th and 113th congress. In 2015 he was named special representative on antisemitism, racism and intolerance to the Osce Parliamentary Assembly. Our other speaker is republican congressman robert aderholt, who represents alabamas fourth Congressional District and has been in Congress Since 1997. Hes a member of the House Committee on appropriations, serves as Ranking Member of the subcommittee on commerce, justice and science. Hes been a commissioner on the u. S. Helsinki commission since 2001 and we are thrilled to welcome him to the Wilson Center. So lets start with you, ben. For five to seven minutes of opening remarks followed immediately by congressman aderholt. Ben jane, first of all, thank you very much for this opportunity and thank you for holding this event. First of all, it gives me a chance to see some of my friends. Its great to have Spencer Oliver on the call and robert aderholting, my colleague from alabama, the two of us have worked very closely together within the oe. And ill start witthat derstanding. The osce and u. S. Helsinki commission has orated in a very nonpartisan, bipartisan way since day one. So its an area where we come together promoting the principles of helsinki and is brought andt has brought us together in the United States congress with a common missn to advance goals that are important to Democratic States. Sohank you for holding this event. Its a historic day. 30th anniversary of the charter of paris. Lets go back a little bit in time ife might at least to start. 1975, when the helsinki final act s entered into, it was basilly an initiative in which russia wanted to claim he yit macy as a Democratic State and theyre the ones who really wanted to have the commission for security and cooration in europe to sh to europe that they were part the democratic fibeof the continent even though they re not. And the years between 1975 and 1990 were years of struggle. Im going to just fast forward a little bit to 1987. 1987 was my first year in the United States congress. My besfriend at that time was steny hoyer who is chair of t u. S. Elsinki commission. He asked me to get involved with the work of the u. S. Helsinki mmission in 1987. I did. The rst issues i got roved involved with were basically soviet jews, trying to save soviet jews under the umbrella of the u. S. Helsinkiommission. I remember meeti with representatives of the soviet union and talking aut these ises. It was a struggle. I had the opportunity to visit berlin, a divided city, to see the imct of the cold war and the division of europe. And recognize that the damage recognize the damage that had been done. Erestroika came in 1987, 1988, 1989 with gorbachev whe he was trng to move toward a more open society. And then in 1989, the fall of the berlin wall. Paris came a year later. The second summit of the of the helsinki process. And iwas a maj accomplishment to get to 1990. But the years between 1975 and 1990 were years of struggle. They were years trying to promote the principles of helsinki even though we were very far from reaching those goals. And i want to acknowledge up front the work of the frontline crusaders and o that, the founder of the Moscow Helsinki Group in 1976, spent 15 year prison in rusa as a result his advocacy on behalf of human rights for the people of russia. He found a new home in the United States. He died this past september at the age of 96. But t point i bring up here with mentioning yuris name is that the helsinki process wa not just a dialogue among governments but beeen governments and thr citizens. And we should acknowledge the importance of Civil Societies because theyre facing renewed repression in the osce rion. So the pis charter was a maj complishment. It was a major statement. Something to celebrate. That w the commitment that democracy as the only system of government for our nations. That was the statement of the paris charter. Defending the free media from attack. Deterring electoral mconduct through Observation Mission and the premiere organization in the world defending human ghts. And ill just give you one example if i might of that advancement. At was the progress we made combating humanrafficking, modern daylavery. I say that because that waan initiative that started in the u. S. Helsinki commison. We took it to the parliamentary assembly. It was adopted in the parliamentary assembly. And it led to legislation such as trafficking and persons report in the United States congress which is the premier document globally onvaluating how well each country idoing in fightinmodern day slavery. One of the great accomplishments of the charter of paris was the parliamentar assembly, giving a legislative arm to the osce. I want to acknowledge once again Spencer Oliver the longtime secretary general of the osce parliamentaryssembly. He really went up agast the bureaucracies of our government and establish the parlmentary assembly as an efctive voice within the osce. We initiated smany of the activiti within the osce and we were not restricted as they are in vienna by the consensus rule. Its a proud record of accomplishments but thes still much room r impvement. We talk about going forward, this act just acknowledge that the oe needs to be more open in the way it does business. Has to have greater access to Nongovernmental Organization they have an issue of how Organizational Work is done through consensus. They have on able to overcome those obstacles. But the principal problem within the osce today is not the deciencies in its ornization. Its theack of commitment by the Member States to the principles of helsinki. Tremendous the principle pls defending human rights of its citizens. Principles of noninterference and sovereignty, territory of membertates. So on this 30th anniversary of the paris charter, lets remember the key mission, to build and solve and strengthen democracy as the only system of government of our nations. We all know we can do better. From the point of view of the United States, let me say, we recognize that we have challenges in our ownountry. And we recoize that helski process that every state can d beer. And we welcome the active participation of other states as to how well were doing in our own state. But make no mistake about it, we have countries that have done major violations to the principles of helsinki from russia to belarus to turkey to azerbaijan, to hungary. The list goes on and on. We are committed to a nonpartisan process to continue the great work that was started in 1975, that was really brought to height in 1990. We are committed to making sure as we transition from one administration to another, the bipartisan work we have within the osce framework, within the helsinki process, will only be strength tond advance the principles of democracy and democratic institions. With that, jane, i turn it back to you. Jane thank you very muc ben. Ongressman aderholt. Thank you so much jane. Im thrilledo be here with my colleaguesrom the oe. Senator cardin who we just heard from, who has been a mentoro me on the osce and has worked alongsidhim for many years and hen of course its good to see george, who will be ginning us a little later. Worked with him for several years as parliamenrian from orgia. And then of course our current secretary general, Roberto Montello and the former Spencer Oliver. So secretary general for the Osce Parliamentary Assembly. Get to work with a lot ofreat people and of course not to mention all the staff, i see alex johnson on the call. s a Great Organization to work with. But i have had the privilege of for almost 20 ce years. Right after about my ird term in congress i was table go, and oddly enough my first osce parliamentary assely meeting was in berlin. That was my first exposure to it. Have y a great place to that, and my first trip to berlin as well. As we talk about this here today, as senator cardin mentioned, it was 30 years ago that the leads of the participating states of what is now the osce met in paris, adopted the charter oa n europe which boldl proclaime democracy as, let me quote,he only systeof government for our nations. It also declared, quote, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms to be irrevocable. This theharter was built upon, of cour, the helsinki acrd signed back in the mid 1970s, which provided framework for toe o. S. C. As we know it today. It ceased from being an Ongoing Forum for negotiations and dialogue and instead it evolved into a dynamic structure wit multiple institutions within e larger body. The participati states extoed the role that private citins and Nongovernmental Organizations have in promoting huma right, promoting democracy and also the rule of law. I think its noteworthy in his speech to the summit, thenpresident george h. W. Sh said wealute all those individuals in private groups in the west who showed that the protecti of human rights is not just busess of the government. It is real jus leaders, ordinary citizens. And this really remains true today as we witness citizens working to further theause of freedom and a l of times ty do this at a lot of rsonal ri. The osce of course is widely known as having one of the most comprehensive human right commitments in the world. And thats no small pt due to thereadth of human rights commitments agreed on at this landmarkummit in paris. And ill be honest with you, when i came in, 2001, as a member of the osce, what attracted me to the osce and to getnvolved was the involvent with human right commitments anhuman right commitments for people around the world. Whether th be in their Political Freedoms that they had, but also their religious freedoms that they could worship as they choose. Would not be psecuted or discriminated because of it. And what the final the helski final act, what it was for the integrity of the state, the charter paris is for fundamental freedoms. The fall of the berlin wall of course in november of 1989, the collapsef the soviet union in 1991, really gave the paris summit its landmark bookends. Decade a long, tense and the cold war and really catastrophic feefers nuclear war, really at that point gave way to hope of real security, lasting cooperati in europe and a postwar goal of europe beg whole, free, and at peace seemed to be attainable. As we look back over 30 years, its not hard to consider the unfulfilled promise of those euphoric days in paris or even consider whether the high ter ma of the o. S. C. May have predated t formal creation in 1995. Of course it goes without saying there are many regions within oh the osce footprint that remains where there is strife. Where peace and democracy still hang in e balance. Also compounding these matters are the leadership vacuum at the o. S. C. Institutionhat was envisioned by the paris charter to resolve conflicts and restore confidence. But while our predecessors in paris meeting, they had a very interesting time during tir day, the coersations that took place without a pandemic going on and of course like we have ever seen in our own lifetime. And just as no one participating in that charter couldredict the collapse of the soviet union which at that time was only a year away, we cannot see the contours of the world that will emergerom the lockdowns were seeing now and the disruption thcoronavirus has brought to the entire world. I think the question will be is, will the postcovid era be marked by economicesurgence and spirit of cooration by prolonged recession a nflicts, will we get another chance to revitalize the lofty aspirations thats contained in this charter . And whatever the future holds, i believe that a revitalized o. S. C. Will be a powerful asset for our leaders as they navigate in a new era ande continue to call upon all governments to respect the inalienable rights of the governed. Wi that, let me close and say thank you for allowing me to participate today and be a part of this. Its great to be with all of you today. Jane thank you very much, robert. I want to introduce the restf our program and ask y botone question if i can keep you that long. But t me make an observation first and that is how refreshing from the Vantage Point of a weary american it is to see two members of congress in different parties not only engage their friendship with each other but the mission that ey share of being very good stewards of t osce lets ju contemplate that for one second. As many of you on this call know, i served there with both of them for nine terms and left in 2011 because the toxic partisanship was just, for me, too hard to take, so i came to the oasis of the Wilson Center wherwe are nonpartisan and we try to reflect, you know, views from both sides. The interesting thing is members of both parties choose to appear on our for. Im happy tbe where i am but im also happy youre both where u are. Keep takg your vitamins. Let me mention who else will be on this ogram. One question to both of you and turning this program over to dan toing more, we will have two europeans. We will have robert ridberg who serves as deputy minister of Foreign Affairs for sweden, the incoming osce chairing officer and following him will be, hes been mentioned, george serateli, who served as president of the osce since september 17. Previously he was Vice President of the Assembly First elected in the 2012 annual session in monoecoe and subsequently reelected in the 2015 annual session in helsinki. Following them, our dear friend bob zellig will be back for one of his enormous number of appearances at Wilson Center events. Bob was president of the world bank from 2007 to 2012. He was u. S. Trade representative from 2001 to 2005. Deputy secretary of state from 2005 to 2006. But most important for this purpose, from 1985 to 1993 he served as counselor to the retary of the treasury and jim baker and undersecretary and he was also undersecretary of state under secretary jim baker. Jim baker had virtually every role in government, as bob did, as well as White House Deputy chief of staff. For sure, bob was in all e rooms where it happened. When all these arrangements were put in place. And hes still a very act i chronicler of not just u. S. Politics but all things related to this topic. I only have one question, it interests me a lot, ben mentioned it more, i think, but wru did too, robert. The osce is based on the concept of consensus. How refreshing is that in todays fractured world . One of the things that is so interesting is, russia is, was, is, a member of the osce. However, as i mentionled earlier and i know well discuss, the osce is undergoing a leadership crisis. So my question to both of you is, to quote former secretary of defense donald rumsfeld, the concept of consensus quaint . Do we have to get over it and move to some other governing idea for the osce . It is unique that we have this consensus requirement but its worked over its history. Ben it is still the most effective Regional Organization in the world. It has a proud record of accomplishments. I would argue also that the bureaucracy in vienna leads to inefficiencies within the osce. Theres bureaucracies created in vienna that have little to do with even the good connections to the capitals. So there are problems in the in how it operates. We would like to see something short of consensus particularly when it comes to administrative decisions being made within the osce, so it would operate more effectively because we have seen, as we have seen in the United States senate when we tried to operate by unanimous consent, one senator can hold up the whole process for a long time. Yet the same problem and we have the same problem within the osce framework. I think its time to look for ways that we can make the organization more efficient. To have faster decisions made. But i would not try to throw out completely the consensus process. By the way, the United States has been one of the defenders of consensus because recognizing of course were across the ocean from europe so we want to make sure our voice can be heard. I do think its time to look at reforms within the osce process that it can operate mor efficiently than does today. Jane robert . Robert i would just echo what ben says. There is i think one of the key point he is mentioned is historically it has worked overall. And that has been the tradition itvienna and i think overall has been its been a good plan in how it has been carried out. As ben rightly mentioned, ther are probably some things from the bureaucratic level that cod be revised in that regard. But i dont see any reason for the overall process and especially for those here in the United States that wshould go ahead and discard this consensus concept. Jane ok. Thank you both. Before turning this over to dan and the rest of all this, let me just mention that we will have a panel at the end, following a few questions for bob, and thats how well include Spencer Oliver who has already been recognized, ambassador bill hill, a Wilson Center Wilson Center global fellow who served two terms from january, 2003, to 2006, and june 1999 to 2001 as head of the osce mission to moldova and finally alex johnson who serves as chief of staff of the u. S. Helsinki commission for the 116th congress. Prior to that he served from 2007 to 2015 as policy advisor to the commission. So. Thank you both to members of congress. Please keep working together. Please make us proud. And please keep coming back to the Wilson Center. Bob jane, let me also welcome our european friends on this call, we appreciate their extraordinary friendship and leadership in this time. Jane thank you, ben. Thank you, robert. Over to you, dan. Dan thank you to the members of congress and the members of the Helsinki Commission who are participating. Lets turn to our european colleagues. Minister, could youoin us for our brief remarks. Yes, thank u. Senator cardin, congressman aderholt, de friends, thank you for this invitation to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the charter of paris. Robert a true milestone in european cooperation and center priest of europeasecurity. It gives me great essure to celebrate together with the wion center and the helsinki commison that over the years have been such a strong voice in support of human rights and democracy in europe. Your engagement is a clear example of the val of the transatlantic link which is essential for the security in rope in defense of our common values o democracy and human rights and cooperation of military and other security matters. Looking back 30 years when the charterf paris w adopted, there was a strong sense of hope. We saw an opportunity to build internatiol cooperation based on respect for democracy and human rights for everyone in europe. After decades of communist and soviet rule, millions of people in europe would finally ere finally getng the freedom to choose their political leaders and states were given the opportuny to independently decide if or which security arrangement th wanted to belong to. The foreign minister takes on the role of chairperson in a month and a half. 28ears since we, sweden, last held that office. Todays politil landscape could not be more different from hat of the early 1990s. Today, where democracy and fundamental rigs are bei systematically challend, also within the o. S. C. Region, its hard to believe that back then the end of history was predicted and the spread of liberal democracy was seen as unstoppable. Developments or the past three decades show that given the chance, ople choose freedom over tyranny and cooperation over conflict. The european securitied or we are the helsinki final actnd paris charter at the Center Provides a framework for achieving this. It is no coincidence that nearly all seris challenges to our security stem from situations where the fundamental principles of helsinki and paris are not spectedbe it viotions of ukraines territorial integrity or the lack of respect for democracy and human rights that have led to the protests in belarus this autumn. The osce has the means to support participating states to live up to their comtments from helsinki and paris. We had to address different bases of the conflict cycle in our reon. A special monetary mission to ukraine is one such. The offer by chairman inhofe and to gn minister lynn lee facilita genuine dialogue in larus is another example. But without genuine political willrom those involved in conflict, it is hard to reach. This is why defending the European Security order andts fundamental principles will be a priority for the swedish 2021 chairpersoof the osce. We see it as essential to build on principle agreed by all in order to achieve security for all. In short, we want to go back to basics. Two other priorities to strengthen the comprehensive concept of security and to contribu to solving the conflict in our region. They are in many ways part and parcel of our commitment to the security order. The priorities are interlinked as therean be no susinable security without the quality between without equality between women and men, respect for democratic law and the universa enjoyment of human rights. One of the first exhibits we are planning for nexyear is an expert level meeting on antisemitism in vienna in the beginning of february. This meeting wh the chairs personal representative on combating antisemitism will have a leading role, could also provide useful input to the forum on holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism which will be hosted by the Prime Minister in stember, 2021. In conclusion, dear friends, we believe that through inclusion an respect for agreed principle, the osce can make a real difference and the charter of paris is essentialor the osce. Thank you. Dan thank you, minister. Those great remarks are appreciated very much. Let me turn right away to president seratelli. I want to shut utah to robert y monello who is with us, the chairman of the assembly. President seratelli, please. Thank you. Thank you, dan. Thank you very much for this invitation. Im very much pleased to take part in this important discussi with this distinguished participants. Id like to welcome our old friends. I see several old freppeds. Its very,ery special role. And of course leaders of our assembly, current and previous. George good friends, senator cardin, robert adholt. We just concluded a few minutes o marking the 30th anniversary of the charter of paris and ben cardin also delivered his remarks there. We agreehat this visnary document which ding incredie upheavals of the early 1990s includes some of the strongest principles adopt by the osce participants. It took us working tooth toward e fulfillment of universal equality and democracy bas on human rights and freedoms, social justicend equal security f all our countries. The United States in particular through active engagement of membersf congress has tri to live up to that visi by reinforcing political and military dialogue across the reon. It has been an essential supporter of democracy, rule of law and Great Respect for human rights and fundamental knee doms. Overall american engagement has strengthened security and promoted stability throughout the area. In 1990, we should member that leaders who signed the document wer fully aware of the challenges that lay ahead. They knew that eliminating the threat of major war did not rule out the possibility ofonflict in europe. Just to quote u. S. President george bush at the time, as all politicadivisions disappear, other sources of tension are emerging. Abuses of minorities and human rights continue. 50 yea later, geopolitical confrontation remains commonplace. As whave seen most recentlin raine and georgia, its a challenge. Theres problems in commitment in the human dimension. And in this exceptional year we have seen t disruptive power of internaonal and transnational challenges. Popution has continued to bat they wil covid19 pandemic, we still need to protect our citizens against the threat of viability extremism and terrorism, find ways to safelying more migrant and refugee issues and addss Climate Change. All this should lead us to reflect in depth on the histor and role of our organization. Given the current leadership risis mentioned previously and o. S. C. Executive structures which is a by product of gradual breakdown. We must urgently find ws to reinvigorate the organizatn and promote efftive muilateral cooperation. Having been a member of the parliamenty assembly for over a decade, i remain convinced that we must continue to fully explore the potential of parliamentary diplomacy as an inclusive and conructive tool to break pitical deadlock. As we have done in the past we mustemain jut spoken in our commment for more transparency and accountabilityithin the osce as a way to make the organization stronger and more effective. In order to consolidate this over the lt threeecades, we parliamentaries have an important job to do. I know the members of e Helsinki Commission are fully committe to this endeavor. Their support lends consider weht to our work and we are very much thankful for this through events such as this one or participation in our meetings and missions in the field to help sig can rse the visibility of the entire ganization. We continue to give and call for high level political attention to the wk which is crucial through debate congress and joint work with the state department and other parts of the administration. And this serves as an inspiration for moreountries to hold their goverents accountable and pusfor the full implementatioof the coittee. As a worof conclusion let me again thank the Helsinki Commission, alex johnson a great supporter of the work ofsce parliamentary assembly. And tnks for carrying th important work on behalf of all oucountries. Thank you. Dan thank you smuch. We appreciate thoswords. Given the time and i know peoples constraints, im going to turn now directly to bob zellig. Jane already introduced bob who is one of those people you dont need to introduce but i think the point that jane made at the end of her introduction, bob, that time, 1990s, 19891990, was a time where a lot of puzzle pieces had to be put together. You were the one, really, frankly, who was in a lot of those rooms where those people had to be sorted out. I wonder if you have reflections on that time and also aut the uture and over to you. Thanks bob thanks, dan. It is a pleasure to be here with representative aderholt and senator cardin and my longtime friend jane harman. I totally agree with jane. Not only do i want to thank you for your tireless work for u. S. Internationalism but as ive seen over the decades, if there are ways democrats and republicans can at least Work Together on these and see each other across the aisle it makes a huge difference in getting things done. I compliment both of you in particular. So i want to offer just a quick word on the past and observation for today. The charter of paris was the culmination of two years of intensive diplomacy to bring the 40yearold cold war to a peaceful end. To put this in the larger Historical Context you could compare it to the congress of vienna in 1815 after their french revolution and napoleonic wars, or the treaty after world war i, because europe never settled the issues after world war ii in 1945. We had the long delay and the cold war. Just consider the strategic context in 19891991. We were unifying the democratic germany while trying to reassure neighbors east an west of future security. Many people forget the critical determination that gorbachev made on accepted the united germany in nato was based on the principle that countries would be free to choose their alliance. Its a point president bush made in june of 1990 and gorbachev accepted. We also wanted to create an opportunity for countries that suffered in Eastern Europe to move beyond the place in histy history where it had been referred to as the lands between germany and russia, to become part of a unified, democratic europe. Also to reassure security from the atlanta toik the urals with a landmark conventional agreement which had a huge reduction in troops, verification, often overlooked by historians but quite important to assist the soviet union, later and end of its empire, while respecting its concerns for Security Development and political ties. Supporting the e. C. s transition into what is today the European Union, with political and monetary union, while encouraging the e. C. To expand to the east and have ties with the United States. And as jane mentioned from the start, recognizing the transatlantic connection with the u. S. And canada, in parts through changes of nato and the institutionization. So as senator cardin mentioned, history is important, the United States had recognized the roles in the last 15 years of the cold war, in trying to encourage human rights, more open to society, serving as a rallying point for courageous disdenlts. Engaging Civil Society in formal diplomacy. In december of 1989 so, this is right after the wall came down, secretary baker gave a speech in berlin that outlined the path for german unification. But it was done so in the context of necessary changes in rope in nato, in u. S. E. C. Relationship and the csce. We envisioned that c. S. C. Could be an umbrella body to help build the institutions of democracy. So we were just feeling our way but there were ideas of lection monitoring, critical rule of parliamentary assembly. The legislators of all these countries, be fundamental Political Support, the principles of economic freedom, forum for negotiating security disputes, a link to the Civil Society, and, importantly from the u. S. Perspective, to reinphotographers the strong interest of congress reinforce the strong interest of congress. Because nothing lasts long in u. S. Policy unless you have congressional support. But even if the countries were signing the charter of paces i,ed old the old ghosts of europer were reawakening in the balkans. I think this is a caution not only for them but for today, which is, the work of diplomacy and democracy is never done. Its an ongoing mission. So today, the ties between the United States and europe have frayed. We actually have the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. Yet in facing the fundamental questions of the future of free societies, i think the European Union, the u. S. , the other noneuropean Union Members in europe, United Kingdom, we all have a tremendous amount in common. My own sense is that President Biden is going to face a very demanding domestic agenda, pandemic, inclusive economic recovery, future biological security, Climate Change, immigration, the racial tensions. But a creative policy could actually connect each of these with an International Agenda and in doing so, rebuild ties with allies and partners. Just to take an example. If next year is the year i hope of vaccines and medical treatments, well, its not enough to rejoin the w. H. O. Youre also going to have to extend its role, which you can do with some of the International Finance institutions like the world bank to the developing countries. Or, as president bush 43 launched an h. I. V. Aid initiative with the help of congress, which was a game changer for subsaharan africa. Were also seeing that these virus breakouts are becoming more frequent, greater economic cost, because of changes in the wildlifelivestockhuman connection there. Will be a need for preventive action. In carbon, i believe its important for the u. S. To join the paris accord, but one will have to go beyond that. This is ultimately a challenge for the biggest economies in the world, if you can get 10 or 12 of them to really focus, youre going to make a huge difference. But you also have ways to bring in the developing countries. When i was at the world bank, we explored how soil carbon could be great for absorbing carbon and african agriculture. Forestation, adapting for island states and the need to work with the European Union on cybersecurity, data, i. T. Issues. Both for a sense of our security in the world, but also for some fundamental issues of privacy and human rights. Can we come up with a framework on this that respects National Differences while also dealing with the fundamentals. And then theres also all this work can be the foundation for the ongoing dangers, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, russia. I personally think that this cooperation could provide the basis for the largest challenge, which is dealing with the rise of china. Because while were celebrating the events in europe of 1989, 1990, its important to recognize that thats when the cold war ended, it ended in europe. It didnt necessarily end in asia. 1989 was the year of tiananmen square. So 30 years on, i think u. S. , europe and partners around the world will still need an active diplomacy, critical from the support of congress, and historically my sense is americans have always seen nationalism and internationalism as two sides of the same coin. Not necessarily at all in conflict. And i think the challenge for President Biden, supporters in congress, americans in general will be how can we make that work, including through institutions like the osce. So thank you for all your efforts. Thank you so much, bob. I know you have a few mutes. Let me engage onhat. Jane might want to come back in. Jane, do you have a question already you want to comment or should i proceed . Jane why dont you proceed. I have a question but you go first. Daniel ok. Well, bob, i think the context is, at the time of all of this happened, the u. S. Would be was what i would call a european power. It was comprehensively, as you even said, engaged in all of the different pieces of that puzzle. And was active in helping the europeans with all the coalitions they were putting together. We were a source of reassurance for many. Through a huge transition. Its important to remember, i think, that we had to manage the collapse of two empires simultaneously. Soviet union and yugoslavia. One we did relatively well, the other one not so well. And thats the balkans. Tomorrow is the signing of the 25th anniversary of the date and peace accord signing. But all of this has changed the context if we reflect i would argue the u. S. Seems to be drifting away from being a european power to just a power in europe. More selectively engaged, less comprehensively engaged. Do you think theres a trend there that we need to be watching out for that goes beyond any particular administration . Or do you think a case could be made for the u. S. Having to play just as powerful a role as it did in the past . Bob its interesting, henry kisseninger, hes made a point that hes a concern that will europe develop a Strategic Perspective or will it just come a peripheral part ofure asia . And of youre asia . And hes not saying that in a critical way. What hes suggesting is while now and then its a challenge for north americans to deal with european politics, the ultimate result is better. If europe can step up and play a role. So i think the debate that youre seeing right now within europe about the future of the European Union, i took part in a session just yesterday with European Commission and parliamentary people about trying to look beyond today to kind of their own strategic outlook, i think thats healthy. I think the United States should encourage that. And while i certainly wouldnt have taken the Trump Administrations approach, some of the shock effect of trump has perhaps broadened europeans to realize the responsibilities theyll have to assume and maybe that can be constructive. Having said that, i think in the bigger picture, as i try to suggest with my remarks, if you think about the real challenges facing the world, whether its transnational issues or the future of free societies or china, the United States, and i would always look at this from a north american concept with canada, mexico and the u. S. , but our most natural partner will be the European Union and britain. And so in the larger scheme of things, i think its going to be very important that youre fat going to get total agreement. But to recognize the fundamentals of which the osce is a wonderful bedrock representative. Because those are going to be the big issues that determine the 21st century. And my own guess, jane may have a better sense of this, or ben, but i think the biden administrations going to take this approach. And the challenge of course is expectations could become so high theyre going to be hard to reach. But i suspect on issues that are on the domestic agenda, pandemic, economic and immigration issues for us, with central america, for europe with africa and the middle east, with Climate Change issues, these will offer possibilities to leverage the domestic agenda internationally. And this isnt to ignore the traditional agenda. Its to complement it. But i said on a different call last night with bob gates, you know, when weve lost 240,000 or 250,000 people to covid, which is more than weve lost in korea, vietnam and world war i combined, i think weve got to consider that a security issue. Jane you know, bob, your optimism is contagious. Its lovely. And youve seen a lot, done a lot so far. Im not writing you off. By the way, dan, let me suggest, ill ask a brief question. I think ben is still on the call, he might have one too. Well stay on time. I promise, i promise. But my question, bob, is that i was in ukraine in 2015. I was an observer of the election. On a delegation led by madeline albright. At the same time the osce in a had a mission there, wolfgangs i inger was setting up round tables around the country trying to broker participation and inclusion. And while this is all going on, the russians were meddling in eastern ukraine. Is there, optimist bob, is there really hope that the u. S. And russia, and europe, can coexist in this Organization Called the osce and maybe even rebuild some sense of cooperation . Bob im both a realist and an idealist. You have to coexist. Theres something called geography which means theyre going to be in the neighborhood. I dont turn a blind eye. I frankly the issue i think is mosimportant there i the question of interference in eltions and cybersecurity. To me that was the fundamental National Security issue that needed the Obama Administration or the Trump Administration acted forcefully on. But can you find sort of workable aangements as you i trying to ild fodations for the future . I hope so. I mean, i thk one has to take thisort of step by step, not starryeyed. In the case of ukraine, look, ukraines future is going to be determined fundamentallyy ukrainians. What i mean by that is th political system deang with corruption, economics, and he again we nd to broaden our coept of security. There ways that u. S. And europe can help. Thes ways the Financial Institutions can help. Ultimately it still has to be done b the people of these countries. My own sense is that the russian behavior with auto ukraine probably enhaed ukraian nationalism more an any other ep. But ultimatelyt will be up to the ukrainians, but what ive seen, whether i was government or the world bank or outside is theres a combination of moralupport, sharing experience, y know, encouragement that people can often underestimate, but this is where, again, i cant emphase enough the role of congress and parliamentary assemblies. L you had to play youve had to deal with domestic politics but youre also dealing on the international scene. You have to go home to your voters, you have to deal with issuest home. But youan also help people understand how they can do these things. A lot of the end of the day, whetr its the situation in ukine. We have a new president in moldov who used to be someone at the world bank, these are step by step actions. And frankly ill just come back to theasics that the u. S. , European Union, and the u. K. Wi have to be critical playerif we want this sort of free Society System to continue to not only survive, but i hope to expand. Daniel let me, since senator cardin, and the congressman are still here, if i can just ask them briefly just to comment on what theyve heard. But also just to push a ltle bit. I think everyone has me a strong point about the core inciples, helsinki, the charter paris are still viable. A few of you referenced another major effort helsinki has done, the framework for conntional arms control in europe. It was the greatest delitarization of the continent. And it was under the auspices, l sorts of different agreements, and those pillars have eroded. The open skies treaty, the c. F. P. Treaty, the vienna document, which is about confidence building, tho have all eroded. Is there a case to be made, despite the differences with russia, that have been mentioned, to sh that again . To see what can be done so we dont access accidents, miscalculations, militaries bumping into each other again . Senator, do you have a comment on that . Maybe congressman . Senator cardin i do. Let me follow up on bob. What i always enjoyed with my meetings with bob is that he really engaged the democrats and republicans and listened to us in order to try to get things done. And i think youre going to find the same thing under a biden administration. Hes going reach out to both democrats and republicans. Bob recognized that we could advance American Values by working on the global scene and i think joe biden shares those same values. He recognizes that u. S. Involvement globally is going to be in the United States interest. So what youre going to see in a biden administration, i believe youre going see, youre going to see a president that will embrace those allies that share our values. But hell engage all of the countries. But it will be anchored in our values. Which by the way are the hell jinx final act values and reinforcing the charter of paris. So thats where i think youre going to see the engagement. So when you talk specifically about arms control and the fact that new start expires at the end of the year and we could be left with a situation with no major arms agreements with russia, thats a frightening thought. I think youre going to find that he will engage russia, it will be based upon our values, the helsinki final act values, working here will be with our allies to reinforce our strength in those discussions with russia. So, yes, i am optimistic that well see progress made on the global scene. Maybe because ill just give you my editorial comment here. The Trump Administration has been so extreme in its failure to engage in the global community, itly for our allies, that i think youll see a rebalance in American Foreign policy, which will work to the benefit of security and cooperation between europe and the United States. Daniel thank you. Congressman, do yohave a comment . Let me just say its encouraging to hear senator cardin from the aspect that biden will be will work wh both parties. I meanthe difference that we have seen in past times and i think weve seen now is our nation is very divided. And think its more so divided than weve seen. We go back to th 2000 election, and between bush and gore, an it indeed was very divided then. But i even think its even a different level today. Ard and so i think ard and so i thk its going to mr. Aderholt so i think its going to take somebody to come in there who wants to work with both parties, listen to both parties, and reay make them bob as ben cardin says, zoellick, that they are listening. And whether that be on domestic issues and certainly on inteational issues. And to resct those positions that have been in the past. So its encouraging to hear, you know, i have not had a chance like ben has, a even jane has, to work with biden. But i of course have talked wi him before and find him very engaging, wheer youre a democrat or a republican. And i certainly hope thats a signal f things to come. Daniel thank you so much. I know a number of you have to leave now. So i want to thank you for participating in this conversation and encourage to you continue if you can. But i realize the constraints on peoples time. Thank you again for joining us. What wed like to do is just continue the conversation but now bring in a number of other voices who have also had great experience with the osce. Jane has introduced them already. Ambassador william hill. Spencer olver, and alex johnson. Each from their own Vantage Point of have a very deep engagement with organization. And if we think about these broader political comments, some of it does come back to the organization itself. What is the future of the osce per hay per se . And so im sure youve accumulated comments now and if george can stay with us, george, if you want to come back in the conversation, having heard now some other things, but let me try to move a bit push you all a bit to think about future. We talked about the core frame of this Building Security within societies, as critical to the osce. I think theres agreement on that. Weve discussed this whole potential of coming back to the arms control framework which was a major accomplishment and role of the organization as well. But now has sort of been in tatters. But let me just challenge you to think about something else. Which, and i want to shout out to an important mentor of mine, john cornbloom, who was our ambassador also of the osce and played a major role in transitions that happened to get the organization to where it is. We discussed a lot about future what are the deeper trends going on . I want to shoutout also to helen who i think might also be on the call because shes an election monitor, volunteer for the osce. Shes been very engaged and thats exactly the kind of thing the osce does, have people like helen who go out in the field and do this type of work. But if you think about the origin of why helsinki came about in 1975, it was because the east and west were stuck. We were not being able to manage the confrontation, the differences in any way that was useful. And thats why the helsinki accord in essence, if you want to boil it down, was not among countries that agreed on much. It was an agreement on principles that would guide their disagreements. How to guide their behavior as they disagreed on things. It was a common platform, but it was nations of uncommon cause, not nations of common cause. And i wonder today whether one couldnt make a similar case that what were facing are some very deep changes in the nature of security, driven by all sorts of innovative changes that challenge sort of even the territorial notion of security. It is about the digital revolution. Its changing the connections and thinking about how societies are connected and disruptions to those links are as much security as thinking about tank armies and territorial security. That sort of connection of security within societies is what the osce has done best. So shouldnt there be a new type of discussion of basic principles on issues guiding this new Digital Transformation were going through . I dont see it happening anywhere else. Maybe thats something that can happen. So let me put that thought out out to. But i welcome any comments you might have. Spencer, can i start with you briefly . Realizing we have 25 minutes and four people now to speak and well go back. Thank you. Spencer thanks very much. Its interesting to listen and to know that so many old friends and colleagues are on this call. Particularly want to shout out to john and helen who ive known for a long time. We used to cross swords in the initial days of the creation of the Helsinki Commission. And the Helsinki Commission has played an enormous role in the development of the osce, the c. S. E. And the osce and still today is one of the best and most important institutions i itself in the osce. But the osce in s in trouble. I think thats one of the purposes of this discussion. Part of the reason is its dysfunctional. The consensus rule, it which as people know ive harped against for a long time, not to abosh completely theonsensus rule, because i think itnecessary at the highest levels for governments to parcipate and to participate in der to protect their own National Interests and their own security interests, but when you have the consensus rule applied to the approval of staff and budgets, it has brought about an abuse of the system in such a way that theres thats the reason there are no heads of any institutions. Because it has been used in a way to find employment for eople in vienna or elsewhere and not really taking into account the need for the political level engagement of he osce. Theyre great documents and if everybody adhered to them, the world would be a much better place. We could probably never negotiate them again, probably never get agreement on some of the things that are in there. Particularly in human rights. But i think that people need to think about what they need to unlock the some way bureaucratic strangle on the osce. People complain, i know theres an interesting manifesto which signed on to about what need to be done in thes to canky to improve it to the osce to improve it. But the main things that needs to happen is we need to have, if you want to have political level people in the at the top of the osce and participating at the political level, you have to be able to function like a political organization. Not a bureaucracy thats deadlocked because of the consensus rule over minor items like personnel and budget. And thats what one of the things that needs to be addressed i think in order to move forward. I think we all need to i think Everybody Needs to recommit to and has to on several occasions recommitted to all the provisions of the helsinki final act and the charter of paris. But the dysfunction is really in the administration side of the osce and thats something that needs to be addressed. I could go on for a long time about some of these issues but i wont. But i commend you for bringing together this very distinguished group of people. Recognize a lot of old friends and colleagues from days in which i was engaged with both the Helsinki Commission and the parliamentary assembly. So, thank you very much for including me. Daniel alex, can i tn to you . Its sort of direct youre in the current posion where youre balancing the u. S. Issues with the congress and the osce. Some of these issues of budget, administrative structure and the political nature of the organization all come together. I just wonder if you have reflections on that and how you have to manage all of that and the tension theres a tension there between being effective, being a platform for dialogue, but also being a platform for accountability. And i wonder how you think about that. Alex thank you so much, dan. And its such an honor to join so many folks who mentored me over the years in terms of my own knowledge and engagement in the osce. First i want to offer greetings from chairman hastings of the Helsinki Commission, who as you all know was once president of the Osce Parliamentary Assembly and worked closely with many of you. And extends his regards to everyone. Before i get to the functionality point that you asked about, dan, i wanted to quickly mention that right now, and i think a perspective i can offer here is that one of a young person who watched the wall fall. And who is a part of a generation that among which there are a number of people who are currently willing to accept the economic leverage and of political leaders and others who are trending autocratic right now. This of course lends itself to spencers point that many of the commitments and principles established in the paris charter, we would not be able to negotiate them today. Additionally, as senator cardin mentioned, the biggest problem is noncompliance with those commitments. We are seeing so many challenges in terms of trend lines that all the colleagues here have previously mentioned and we need to really go about the process of finding mechanisms and solutions to allow for the operations of the osce to manage faithfully and continue and then have the political determinations of course operate in that same fashion. The commission has done its part in terms of convening hearings, briefings and even taking a look at this unique year of the pandemic to reflect on human rights at home. So, chairman hastings set forth and worked with partners on the commission to convene a series of hearings that reflected not only on this Global Movement around racial justice, but a number of other questions about how the United States was looking at Media Freedom or other questions. So, its very important that we ourselves as a nation try to adhere to those commitments and then build that dialogue and continue to move forward. Ogether as participating daniel thank you. Bill, ambassador hill, you had so much experience with the organization, but i know youre thinking about the future too. And ways to keep it relevant. So, can you take us to the future, how do we make the osce continue to be relevant given the function thats been mentioned, the political tensions that were facing, what is its role really . William well, thanks, ben. And thanks to the Wilson Center for having me on. Its great to find so many people with whom ive worked, for whom ive worked. I worked in the c. S. P. During the times of great disagreement. Leading starting in the mid 1980s, early 1980s, and through the good times of cooperation and then watched harder times come again. I find agreement with much thats been said, with what bob zoellick has said about the history or spencer and alex, making very good points about how you manage the institution. But the point is that in 1975, when the final act was signed, in 1990, when the paris charter and the treaty on conventional forces in europe was signed, the csce, the future osce, was dealing with key questions of security, both military, political and Human Security in all of europe or the euro atlantic area. And i know from having over 30 years of experience of trying to call the attention of senior policymakers to the importance of work in an institution, if the institution does not offer the opportunity and the ability to address important questions, you know, the policymakers will be called elsewhere. Their time is limited. And if the participating states bring only what are viewed as peripheral issues to the institution, the institution itself will be viewed as peripheral. I think the Current Crisis in europe and north america, the pandemic, and the ongoing uncertainty, the collapse of the postcold war era after the russian annexation of crimea and the war offers an opportunity and a necessity to rethink europeaneuro atlantic security. Why is europe important to us . Is still is. Asias become more important but europe is still our main partner. And its important what sort of system governs europe and how all european nations deal with their own security. And new issues have arisen. And the osce is really the only body in which you can get an alleuropean, alleuro atlantic solution to these. You cant do it in the e. U. There are important nations left out. You cant do it in nato. There are important nations left out of nato. You cant do it in the natorussiachzech council because there are still important countries that dont take part in that. So the osce really is the european forum, alleuropean, euro atlantic forum, in which youll deal with questions of how do you adjust a new system . How do you develop a new system of political and military security that takes into account technical advances in the military and the change in the geopolitical landscape in europe . And were going to have some tough conversations to deal with this because there are nations there that have very different views from us. Russia certainly. But the issue of turkey and its relationships with its neighbors right now. This is a serious question. These are issues that are going to have to be and can really only be productively taken up in you include everybody if you include everybody. You have to bring the important issues to the table. We as the United States and you also have to listen to the other countries who bring in questions that at first were going to be reluctant to entertain. Were not going to be receptive initially to their point of view. But its in that dialogue as started in geneva in 1973 that you eventually get agreement on a broad set of principles and practical arrangements that might take us into a new order. The postcold war order that was structured at the charter of paris worked well for 25, 30 years. The principles remain and we will still aspire to them. But its time to negotiate a new order and i think thats the opportunity for the osce, if our political leaders are willing to take it. And with a new administration coming in in the u. S. , Lessons Learned from the pandemic, i think its an ideal time to seize that opportunity. Daniel thank you, bill. We have limited time and i dont want to neglect our audience. But apologies to the audience. If you have a question, i can try to weave it in. You would need to send a question to my email. Dan. Hamilton wilsoncenter. Org. For any question, ill try to weave in. But i continue the conversation as we go ahead. I dont want to pick on roberto but i see that hes here. So i want to if roberto is if youre able, youve been listening patiently. I know youre in the middle of all of this. The secretary general of the Osce Parliamentary Assembly. They today also did a major event, i know, and youre really in all of this. What do you make of this . Whats the future . Because its your job on the line. [lauter] roberto thank y, dan, and thank you to the wson center. In a conversation which features my current boss and my former boss and mentor, everything would call for me to sit in religious silence and take notes and listen. But as you call on me to say a few wos, i will take it. Daniel its a private event. Youre free to speak. Roberto thank you very much. With george and spencer, i should only sit in religious silence. And learn. But youre giving me the opportunity to say that. I think this conversation, the informality of it allows know say. What spencer just mentioned, the Critical Issues that are in the organization is very much on target. Indeed spencer mentioned the fact that there is a difficulty with the misuse of the consensus rule in the organization. Especially when you come to the issues of appointment of leadership of the organization, administrative decisions. I have been secretary general, i have encountered two leadership crises. In 2017, during our annual session in minsk, i had four empty chairs, witnessing the fact that the organization could not find consensus on the leadership of the organization and now again, since july 17, we do not have leaders in the four main top jobs of the organization. When i was confronted with this second leadership crisis, i thought, what can the Osce Parliamentary Assembly do . I think the Osce Parliamentary Assembly has learned from spencer and from other leaders in the past that one of the challenges of these organizations is the lack of political attention. I think and ive been privileged, thanks to spencer taking know Many Councils before, to talk to ministers during the ministerial meeting and ive noticed in the minister sometimes a lack of understanding of where they were. Normly the ministerial meeting of the osce takes place in between a nato summit and the following week there is an e. U. Council meeting. So you would if they are ministers who come to the meeting, read a statement prepared by ambassadors and then engage in bilateral meetings that have very little to do with the matters that are dealt with within the osce. And therefore the osce game, lets say, is very much left up to those [indiscernible] and ambassadors, some capitols capitals. But there is little attention from the political leadership. I thought the parliamentary assembly, a plethora, 323 members of parliament who are political leaders in their countries, they have influence in their own National Assemblies and in their leadership, they should get engaged and they should step up, especially in this moment where there is lack of leadership in the osce. And thats what we did since the osce leadership crisis. Our mens members have started to be speaking up more, have been trying to engage the ministers and i think weve done a great job in getting our members to engage on all the dossiers of the osce. We couldnt have our annual session or normal forum where the parliamentarians engage on the three dimensions of the osce. But we did a few dialogues on all of the issues that are now very much at the sent of this center of this pandemic crisis. What we want to do with this operation, i called it operation [indiscernible] the former secretary general, Spencer Oliver mentioned the manifesto. Its a call for action, for a common endeavor of all the osce family. I call this an operation laz regulate from the idea that something is not so revigrated and need to be reinrigvate reinvigorated. What we want to do is engage and get the attention of ministers on what they signed on many years ago. Spencer said that none of the things that we are now [indiscernible] of the osce would be agreed upon right now. Given the current geopolitical situation. So what we want to do is exactly that. Go back to the roots of the organization and speak at the highest level, trying to get the attention of ministers on what are the values of these organizations. And as somebody who is working the field, has worked at the very grassroots in the organization, i worked in the balkans in the 1990s, i have seen with my own eyes the benefits that this organization actually delivers on the ground. Ive seen many people who have enjoyed the work of the osce missions and Institution Building and conflict representation and reform of Law Enforcement and reform of the judicialer judiciary. So this organization does a lot of good work but nobody knows about it. So what we need to do is keep on doing this good work, probably a lot of it is done in silence. But also call the attention of the ministers and thats what we try to do with this manifesto. And i think our president will present this manifesto to the ministers at the Ministerial Council meeting on the third of december and there we will start a series of conversations in the different areas of the osce portfolio and i hope to gage many of you, of course, in the call to keep talking about the organization and strengthening of the organizati. Thank you very much. And sorry for bng too [indiscernible] daniel thank you, roberto. I think if you need a partner audience in the United States, were happy to be part of that conversation. Let me only have a coup mites. Really just brief. I wa to weave in three dierent questions ive gotten but they all kind of point in he same direction. We talked about the political role of the osce but some would say its most important ts most important conderations contributions have been in itField Missions. Itsot what happens at vien, its what happens out in the conflt areas. And that role its played through conflict prevention, monitoring, all of those kds of thinghave really been where its made its biggest difference, if you think about all of the issues i tri to rais earlier. But its challenged now. This special Monitoring Mission in ukraine doesnt really isnt able to fulfill its full mandate. The oscerankly was sidined in the [indiscernible] crisis. Some would say maybe now theres a role for the osce going forward,ow that theres some sort of armistice, if you will. Bu maybe not. It wasnt a good day for the osce after working out for decades and then suddenly russia and turkey frankly cam in and ignored the organization. Then theres a question about the osce and belarus. It was mentioned was made of an offer to sort of get engaged but so far its been limited. So its very diffilt. We only have and it even more difficult because we have three nutes. So let me turn to anyone on that panel who wants to take this on. The future of the Field Missions, its relevance in a tough area like where really the credility of the whole organization is on t line if its not relevanto exactly the issues it says its working on . Not a Bashful Group ually. But im gng alex, ease. Alexof course i would defer to ambassador hill who actually of course led a Field Mission in moldova. Daniel ill gve you each a minute. One minute. Alex quickly. I wanted to say the Field Missions are where the osce matters in our lives. Its where many europeans see the tangible impact and connection between the litical commitments and the functioning of their institutions. And the important thing is i hope more americans also recognize and get engaged, including Civil Society and other subnational actors, to take a look at how the osce can be a platform for addressing a number of issues and securing that high level political commitment to move forward in a transatlantic manner. The challenge, as you said, how a number of key conflicts were cut out of negotiations, where the osce was not able to be active really speaks to the crisis of the abuse of the con sent us consensus rule in some instances to block even the consideration of Field Operations in for for example, the office that was closed, of course blocked by azerbaijan. So there needs to be a refresh and a serious look at how we can ensure that nations that want to have Field Operations are able to have them and that there continues to be Robust National support and funding for theirontinued operaons. Daniel thank you. Bill . William i would add if a head of mission doesnt have united support from Head Quarters from the major states at headquarters, youre nothing knot going to get anything done youre not going to get anything done. I wrote the proposal for the minsk conference, we were supposed to have a peace conference between azerbaijan and armenia. They signed the document and in 1992 and then never came to the conference and we they ended up at war. These things happen. Its not just the osce. The united nations. You have to keep trying and as part of this, you have to put a good mission in the field that can do a lot and you have to work hard to maintain unity in the headquarters that sends the mission out so that the head of mission has Political Support and is able to overcome political resistance which. Here will be in the states thats a realist view but the fact that its difficult and the fact that not all of them work the way we thought they would isnt a reason for not doing them. Because yostill can do a lot of good. Daniel ok. Spencer, bring us home. One minute. Do you have anything to add . . Spencer i agree with all of the previous speakerhere just before me. But i think that the needs to beome attention given to osce reform, this is like kind of like i sound like a bad record. But there really does need to be some political attenon to reorganizing the institutional struures of the osce if youre going to make it work. And its worth trying to do because the charter of harris and the helsinki final act are documents which are extremely valuable. Theyve made a gat contribution to peace and security throughout the region. And theres no other place where you have 57 countries sitting around the table where everybodys equal. I think thats the important ingredient for the osce, as bill said. Theres no other place quite like it. But at some point, they have to rise above the more nyfor this minor issues like whether or not someones going to get a second level job at some institution and holding u the whole budg unless you get it. Thats what happens. Thats why the osces now in deep trouble. Because that has become the mainunction of a lot of the people in enna, itrying to get some advantage for emselves or their colleagues. And thats a mistake. I reallyont think we need a permanent council. I would rather go back to the annual review meetings and ministerls where some public attentio is played is on the to bear on accountability of people who made commitments under the helsinki finalct. You need a secretary general, ou need a secretariat. Parliamentary assembly is a godsend for the organization and the Field Missions, as ex pointed out, ar where theeal work is done. But at some pointthe Field Missions have got to be acceptable to the host countrs, otherwise its not going to work. But they need politicallevel support and political level encouragement to make it work. So, im hopeful but were in a deep ditch so we have to stop digging and start building. Daniel ok. Good words to end on. Its a sober reflection of the accomplishments and the challenges that we have. Want to thk you all for joining us today. Want to thank our audiee for sticking with us and particating. This web cas will be posted on the Wilson Center site and i hope it receives some additional attention. But thank you all for continuing with us. Alex, thank you and the Helsinki Commission for cosponsoring with us today and my colleaes at the Wilson Center and everyone else. So thank you again. Hope you have a good day. Good weekend. Take care. Thank you very much. Thank you. [captioning performed by the