This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 WARSAW 003473 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL PL OSCE
SUBJECT: OSCE: HDIM ELECTION ISSUES 
 
REF:  A) USOSCE 379  B) USOSCE 249 
 
This cable is sensitive but unclassified.  Please 
handle accordingly. 
 
¶1. (U) Summary.  Election issues were the focus of 
three early events at this year's Human Dimension 
Implementation Meeting (HDIM)in Warsaw.  During the 
first HDIM Working Session, the clear fault line that 
separates most NGOs and participating States, including 
the United States, from Russia and Belarus re-emerged 
on OSCE election activities.  While all NATO and EU 
members and NGOs defended existing OSCE election 
commitments, observation and assessment methodology and 
assistance, Russia and Belarus repeated their standard 
accusations of double-standards and lack of 
transparency.  During this session, a U.S. NGO attacked 
the United States on the issue of District of Columbia 
voting rights.  A side event organized by ODIHR's 
Election Section showcased the activities of domestic, 
non-partisan observer groups.  A UK side event involved 
a presentation of London's constructive response to the 
findings of the ODIHR Election Assessment Mission (EAM) 
that observed the UK's May general election.  Ukrainian 
and Kyrgyz NGOs blasted CIS election observation in 
both the first Working Session and side event on 
domestic observation.  End Summary. 
 
Working Session One 
------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Though the session was officially on democratic 
institutions writ large, the statements by roughly 30 
governments and NGOs focused overwhelmingly on election 
issues.  Head of ODIHR Election Section Gerald Mitchell 
opened with an overview of ODIHR's previous year 
election-related activities.  Worth noting is that CIS 
election officials visited ODIHR's Election Section in 
November 2004.  ODIHR reciprocated in June 2005.  The 
African Union also sent a delegation to ODIHR in July 
¶2005.  Mitchell said ODIHR will continue efforts to 
enhance follow-up to its post-election recommendations, 
but stressed that states themselves must lead in this 
area.  He noted that invitations to ODIHR for follow-up 
visits are one example of how states can live up to 
their commitment for post-election cooperation with 
ODIHR.  (Note:  ODIHR officials have told USOSCE on a 
number of occasions that the U.S. invitations to the 
OSCE to conduct a follow-up visit after the 2004 U.S. 
general election are an important precedent to convince 
other countries to do so as well.) 
 
¶3. (U) Timothy Cooper, Executive Director of the 
Washington-based NGO Worldrights, blasted the USG on 
the issue of DC voting rights.  He termed DC residents 
"subjects of an all-powerful State" and Washington "one 
of the world's most undemocratic cities."  He noted 
that the OSCE Election Observer Mission (EOM) deployed 
for the 2004 US general election found that the U.S. 
should look to provide equal voter rights for DC 
citizens.  He also drew attention to the July 2005 OSCE 
Parliamentary Assembly resolution calling on Congress 
to address this issue.  He stated that Worldrights has 
turned to the OSCE because the USG refuses to take 
action.  Cooper recommended that OSCE participating 
States pressure the United States in the Permanent 
Council and that the Ministerial Council adopt a 
decision on DC voting rights. 
 
¶4. (U) Vice Chair of the US Election Assistance 
Commission Paul DeGregorio, speaking on behalf of the 
United States, emphasized USG confidence in OSCE 
election work.  He highlighted that the USG has 
welcomed OSCE observation in the United States and 
appreciates its recommendations.  He shared that ODIHR 
has accepted the USG's invitation to conduct a follow- 
up visit and that we hope to receive an ODIHR 
delegation later this year.  DeGregorio outlined the 
USG position on specific elections in the OSCE region 
so far this year and the Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan 
ballots coming up.  He welcomed improvement in Albania 
and Kyrgyzstan, but called for continuing efforts at 
reform and cooperation with OSCE.  (Note:  Full text of 
U.S. statement available from USOSCE.) 
 
¶5. (U) Many speakers reviewed electoral issues and 
problems in specific countries.  The International 
Helsinki Federation, the Macedonian NGO MOST, the 
Serbian Center for Free Elections and Democracy 
(CeSID), Albanian and Moldovan Helsinki Committees, a 
Turkmen youth NGO and others expressed varying degrees 
of criticism of ODIHR; called for international 
engagement; and sometimes made concrete 
recommendations.  A Russian NGO expressed concern about 
the recent restrictions placed on the rights of 
domestic observer groups in that country.  Albania and 
Macedonia pledged to continue to improve their 
electoral systems in cooperation with the OSCE. 
 
¶6. (U) The U.S., EU, Germany, Norway, Albania, 
Macedonia and Slovakia all defended OSCE election 
observation and assistance.  Switzerland expressed 
frustration that, despite extended discussion, the OSCE 
has not yet produced a package of new election 
commitments (commonly referred to as Copenhagen Plus). 
Slovakia was particularly clear in favor of preserving 
ODIHR autonomy, ensuring that any consideration of 
Copenhagen Plus does not undermine existing election 
commitments and placing primary responsibility on the 
relevant states themselves to address their under- 
representation in OSCE election missions by seconding 
observers.  Switzerland and Norway emphasized the need 
for more systematic follow-up to ODIHR recommendations. 
They both proposed a process by which participating 
States would formally explain in the Permanent Council 
how they plan to respond to ODIHR reports. 
 
¶7. (U) The Committee of Voters of Ukraine (on behalf of 
the Ukrainian NGO Coalition "Clean Elections") and the 
Kyrgyz Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society 
challenged non-OSCE election observation organizations, 
including the CIS, to be more transparent.  They 
demanded that such groups publish methodologies; 
provide the makeup of their delegations; explain their 
financing; share geographic deployment plans; etc.  A 
Kyrgyz NGO urged its Government to end participation in 
CIS election observation. 
 
¶8. (U) Russia and Belarus were the sole critics of OSCE 
election work, mostly repeating well-worn contentions. 
Russia argued that the OSCE needed to improve its 
criteria for assessing elections and devise a 
methodology that would preclude application of "double- 
standards."  Trying to sound constructive, Russia 
stated that election observation should serve to assess 
progress; encourage states; and offer assistance so 
that democracy is improved.  How the OSCE announces its 
findings should be reconsidered and geographic 
diversity of election observers enhanced.  Russia 
supports the Chair's efforts to follow-up on the 
election discussion in OSCE as outlined in its July 
letter to ODIHR (Ref A). 
 
¶9. (SBU) Belarus argued that certain participating 
States want to continue to use OSCE election 
observation "for their own ends."  Existing OSCE 
election commitments are "general."  More detailed 
standards are needed to put observation on "firmer 
footing."  A comparative analysis of the election 
systems of the participating States would be a good 
basis for developing those standards.  In light of the 
increasing application of new technologies, isn't ODIHR 
methodology "archaic?"  Belarus stated that the focus 
of OSCE observation should be on making recommendations 
for improvement.  It would therefore make more sense 
for the OSCE to send small expert teams as its standard 
observation tool, rather than the current larger EOMs 
it most typically deploys.  Traditional OSCE EOMs 
should only be organized when a participating State 
requests one.  (Note:  This proposal is Belarus' 
latest, if transparent, suggestion designed to subvert 
OSCE election work.) 
 
Side Event on Domestic Observation 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) Mitchell introduced the side event on "15 Years 
of Domestic Observation in the OSCE Region" by 
highlighting the steady growth of domestic non-partisan 
observer groups since their rights were first 
acknowledged in the 1990 Copenhagen Document.  He 
commented on ODIHR's extra-budgetary project to build 
the capacity of such groups, which allows ODIHR to 
bring domestic observer groups and ODIHR together to 
exchange experiences; allowed the publication by ODIHR 
of a handbook on guidelines for domestic, non-partisan 
observation; and enables the participation of such 
groups in relevant OSCE conferences, like the HDIM. 
Mitchell indicated that ODIHR would continue to monitor 
the treatment of domestic observers as part of its 
activities and wants to investigate ways in which ODIHR 
might be able to help build such groups capacity for 
post-election follow-up. 
 
¶11. (U) The four panelists were Edil Baisalov of the 
Kyrgyz Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society; Enira 
Bronitskaya of the Belarusian Civil Initiative 
"Partnership;" Lilia Shibanova of the Russian 
Association of Non-profit Organizations in Defense of 
Voters' Rights - VOICE; and a representative of the 
Croatian GONG organization.  All four reviewed the 
election-related and other civic activities of their 
organizations as well as challenges specific to their 
countries.  The particularly well-spoken Baisalov also 
attacked the "hypocrisy" of CIS election observation 
missions, which he termed "low-level acting."  He noted 
that the CIS claims its methodology is based on the 
OSCE's, but then trashed the OSCE's approach.  He 
commented on the lack of transparency in CIS election 
observation and the fact that the vast majority of CIS 
observers come from one particular country (i.e., 
Russia).  He reiterated his NGO's call to the Kyrgyz 
Government not to participate in CIS election 
observation. 
 
UK Side Event 
------------- 
 
¶12. (U) The Foreign Office-organized side event, which 
a UK diplomat told USOSCE was directly copied from the 
U.S. side event at the April Supplementary Human 
Dimension Meeting on elections (Ref B), demonstrated 
the UK's commitment to leading by example in the area 
of follow-up to ODIHR recommendations.  Representatives 
of the Department of Constitutional Affairs, Electoral 
Commission and Manchester City Council provided 
overviews of the various actors in the UK system.  The 
Constitutional Affairs Department and Electoral 
Commission had each produced point-by-point responses 
to the findings of the ODIHR EAM that deployed for the 
May UK general election.  Panelist and ODIHR Election 
Adviser Vadim Zhdanovich, who served on the EAM, 
complimented the UK's example of post-election 
cooperation with ODIHR.  UK officials explained that 
the restrictions on international and domestic observer 
access to parts of the electoral process should be 
eliminated in a general election reform bill before 
Parliament.  (Note:  If the UK does lift the 
restrictions on observers in order to come into 
compliance with its OSCE commitments, this will further 
highlight the continuing problems of observer access in 
the United States.) 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) On elections, the HDIM served its purpose 
admirably of allowing NGOs and states to hold 
governments accountable to their human dimension 
commitments.  The valid NGO criticism of CIS election 
activities expressed the view of probably all NATO and 
EU members, which have so far refrained from 
embarrassing Russia on this issue at the PC. 
Mitchell's highlighting of the value of follow-up 
invitations shows the importance of the U.S. continuing 
to lead by example when it comes to cooperation with 
ODIHR.  The professionalism and dedication of the 
domestic observer groups at the ODIHR side event should 
also encourage the USG to continue to support ODIHR's 
extra-budgetary project on capacity-building for them. 
 
ASHE