The 2005 Ljubljana Ministerial Council Meeting

Helsinki Monitor

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 4-18

  Ghebali, Victor Yves ^a  

^a GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT; POLITICAL CONFLICT; REGIONAL SECURITY;

EURASIA; EUROPE; LJUBLJANA; SLOVENIA; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

EID: 33646460923     PISSN: 09250972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157181406776564084     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. As something of a substitute, the CIO issued (as in similar previous cases) a statement reflecting the position of the overwhelming majority of the participating States: MC (13). JOUR/2 Annex 2 of 6 December 2005. For the successive versions of the draft Ljubljana Ministerial Declaration, see MC.DD/14/05 of 18 November 2005, MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 1 of 25 November 2005, MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 2 of 29 November 2005, MC.DD/14/05/ Rev. 3 of 30 November 2005, MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 4 of 2 December 2005, MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 5/Corr.1 of 5 December 2005, MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 6/ Corr.1 of 6 December 2005 and MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 7 of 6 December 2005.
2. See § 51 of the Final Communiqué of the Florence Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, 24 May 2000. Moscow's compliance with the new flanks limits was acknowledged in § 15 of the NATO Prague Summit Declaration of 21 November 2002.
3. See § 8 of MC.DD/14/5 18 November 2005, § 9 of Rev. 1, as well as § 10 of Rev. 2 to Rev. 7 (emphasis added).
4. PC.DEL/1215/05 of 1 December 2005 and § 10 of MC.DD/14/05/Rev. 4 of 2 December 2005.
5. MC (13).JOUR/2 Annex 5 of 6 December 2005.
6. See also Annex 3 (NATO Statement) and Annex 4 (European Union Statement).
7. See § 12 Of MC. DD/14/05/Rev. 3 and Rev. 4 of 2 December 2005, and § 10 of Rev. 5 to Rev. 7.
8. PC. DEL/1225/05 of 3 December 2005.
9. On this point, see Vladimir Socor: 'End-game Negotiations at the OSCE Presage Year-End Abdication', Eurasian Daily Monitor, 1 December 2005, Vol., 2, No. 223.
10. Hans-Joachim Schmidt: 'The Uncertain Future of CFE Between Istanbul Commitments and NATO-Enlargement', The Politico-Military Dimension ofthe OSCE: Arms Control and Conflict Management Issues, Edited by Victor-Yves Ghebali and Daniel Warner, Geneva, HEI/PSIO, 2005,p.153.
11. Ibid, pp. 166-172.
12. So far, the Adapted instrument has only been ratified by Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. For Russia, the entry into force of the Adapted Treaty is not negligible: it would limit the destabilizing effects ofNATo's enlargement, in particular through the introduction of legal constraints on NATO's Baltic flanks.
13. For more details, see Ibid., pp. 155-156.
14. See § 7 of MC. DD/14/05 18 November 2005, § 8 of Rev. 1, as well as § 9 of Rev. 2 to Rev.7. Here again, the timidity of the language dissatisfied the GUAM countries which tabled an amendment stressing that the unresolved conflicts have the additional effect of 'complicat[ing] the full-scale implementation of democratic reforms and economic development, and impact[ing] adversely on the European integration process'. The amendment called for the 'swift' settlement of these conflicts 'as one of the top priorities of the Organization'. It also considered that fair solutions must be based 'on norms and principles of international law, first of all those pertaining to sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of international borders' and that efforts must be aimed at 'demilitarization and democratization of the regions in conflict' (PC.DEL/1213/05 of 1 December 2005; see also PC.DEL/1196/05 of 22 November 2005).
15. Draft statement on Georgia: MC.DD/25/05 of 1 December 2005 and Rev. 1 of 6 December 2005. Draft statement on Moldova: MC.DD/28/05 of 4 December 2005.
16. MC.doc/4/05 of 6 December 2005.
17. Russian amendment PC.DEL/1220/05 of 2 December 2005. Georgian amendment. PC.DEL/1224/05 of 3 December 2005.
18. Or even just (as initially suggested by the Slovenian Chairmanship) to 'timely fulfillment of the commitments as provided for in the Joint Statement of 30 May'.
19. Pc.del/1220/05 of 2 December 2005.
20. Mc (13). JOUR/2 Annex 5 of 6 December 2005.
21. Mc.dd/28/05 of4 December 2005.
22. MC (13). JOUR/2 Annex 5 of 6 December 2005.
23. MC (13). JOUR/2 Annex 6 of 6 December 2005. See also MC.DEL8/05 of 5 December 2005 and MC.DEL/65/05 of 6 December 2005. American reaction in support to Moldova: MC (13). JOUR/2 Annex 7 of 6 December 2005.
24. MC.DOC/5/05 of 6 December 2005. In 2004 a series of meetings in Prague between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan (with the Minsk Group mediators) initiated a so-called 'Prague Process'
25. Taleh Ziyadov: 'Armenia and Azerbaijan Hope to Make 2006 a Year of Peace', Eurasian Daily Monitor, 4 January 2006, Vol. 3, Issue 2.
26. Emil Danielyan: 'Looming Karabakh Deal Not Debated in Armenia For Now', Eurasian Daily Monitor, 6 January 2006, Vol. 3, Issue 4.
27. Draft statement on Kosovo: CIO.GAL/171/05 of 17 November 2005 (+ Rev. 1 and Rev. 2) and MC.DD/26/05 of2 December 2005 (+ Rev. 1 and Rev. 2).
28. MC (13).JOUR/2 Annex 5 of 6 December 2005.
29. MC (13).JOUR/2 Annex 9 of 6 December 2005 (emphasis added). See also PC.DEL/1226/05 of 31 December 2005.
30. Rules of procedure: MC.DD/18/04/Rev. 1 of 28 September 2005, Rev. 2 of 16 November 2005, Rev. 3 of 22 November 2005, Rev. 4 of 30 November 2005, Rev. 5 of 2 December 2005 and Rev. 6 of 3 December 2005 (MC.DD/18/ 04 issued on 26 November 2004 by the Bulgarian Chairmanship). Dissolution of the Senior Council: MC.DD/D/11/05 of 14 November 2005.
31. Decision-making process: CIO.GAL/140/05 of 28 September 2005. CIO.GAL/ 140/05 of 28 September 2005 (+ Rev. 1-3). Election commitments: MC.DD/17/ 05 of 23 November 2005.
32. MC.DEC/17/05 of 6 December 2005. Successive versions of the draft decision: MC.DD/13/05 of 16 November 2005 (+ Rev. 1 to Rev. 6/Corr. 1).
33. Russian reaction: PC.DEL/870/05 13 September 2005 (see also PC.DEL/905/ 05 19 of September 2005). US reaction: PC.DEL/871/05 of 13 September 2005.
34. For more details, see the 'Perception Paper' which the Slovenian Chairmanship established on the basis of the high-level consultations: CIO.GAL/132/05/ of 16 September 2005.
35. The GUAM deplored the fact that the listing does not mention the proposal of a 'special mechanism within the OSCE dealing with issues regarding the settlement of unresolved conflicts': see PC.DEL/1223/05 (+ Rev. 1) of 3 December 2005 and PC.DEL/1229/05 of 4 December 2005, as well as Attachment 1 to MC.DEC/17/05 of 6 December 2005.
36. MC.DEC/17/05 Annex 5 of 6 December 2005.
37. For more details on this topic, see this author's article: 'Debating Election and Monitoring Standards at the OSCE: Between Technical Needs and Politicization', OSCE Yearbook (forthcoming).
38. See PC.DEL/1022/04 and PC.DEL/1023/04 of 27 October 2004 (Belarus) as well as PC.DEL/1225/04/Corr.1 17 of December 2004 (Central Asian States, except Uzbekistan).
39. See PC.SHDM.GAL/5/05 of 12 July 2005, p. 6 and 49-50.
40. PC.SHDM.GAL/5/05 of 12 July 2005, p. 12.
41. MC.DD/17/05 of 23 November 2005.
42. PC.DEL/1218/05 of 2 December 2005. In a written contribution to the Ljubljana Ministerial, the Executive Committee of the See CIS advocated similar steps (MC.IO/3/05 of 5 December 2005). On behalf of Georgia, and Moldova, Ukraine declared that the three countries had 'nothing to do with that position' and that 'See ODIHR's election observation methodology has set exemplary professional standards, in particular in terms of its independence and impartiality' (MC.DEL/62/05 and MC.(13).JOUR/2 Annex 10 of6 December 2005).
43. MC.DEC/17/05 of 6 December 2005: § 2.
44. MC.DEC/17/05 of 6 December 2005 Attachment 2.
45. MC.DEC.14/05 Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of 6 December 2005, as well as MC.DEC.15/05 Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 of the same date.
46. MC.DEC/10/05 Attachment of 6 December 2005.
47. Text of the draft joint proposal: CIO.GAL/163/05 of 8 November 2005.
48. Porto Ministerial Council 'Statements' (2002): § 6 and § 9 of section 5.