VZCZCXRO2580
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR
DE RUEHC #3645 1192128
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 292109Z APR 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 9916
INFO ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS STATE 043645 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: MO OSCE PGOV PREL RO
SUBJECT: OSCE/PERMANENT COUNCIL:  INTERVENTION ON 
PRIORITIZING OSCE ACTIVITIES 
 
¶1. Post is authorized to make the following statement at the 
April 30 Permanent Council meeting in Vienna: 
 
Begin text: 
 
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 
 
With the discussion of the Program Budget Performance Report 
currently underway in the ACMF, we are reminded of our call 
last year for each participating State to think seriously 
about which OSCE programs are priorities for the 
organization, and which are not.  We continue to believe 
that, in these times of limited resources and global 
financial crisis, it is imperative that we concentrate our 
efforts on those things the organization does best, and where 
it adds the most value. 
 
While we all talk a lot about prioritization, we have not 
been as successful in articulating clear priorities to help 
guide the Secretariat in their preparation of the budget. 
The participating States should more clearly articulate a 
vision of the OSCE,s priorities.  Our organization cannot be 
all things to all States.  We encourage the Chairmanship to 
lead a discussion during the upcoming Program Outline of what 
our priorities are, and what they are not.  For the United 
States, we will continue to prioritize programs that advance 
the OSCE's core values, including strengthening the 
implementation of participating States, commitments in all 
three dimensions. 
 
In preparation for that effort, we would like to suggest that 
each participating State identify its top priority programs. 
For example, last year,s Program Outline contained roughly 
90 distinct functional programs, excluding executive 
management and administrative support functions.  We would 
like to propose that each State generate an indicative list 
of its top 30 priority programs.  If all of these lists were 
compiled, it would generate an interesting rank order of 
programs widely supported, programs with some support, and 
programs with very little support at all.  While there is no 
clear connection between low ratings and program elimination, 
using such a list would very much facilitate the hard work of 
determining where resources should be focused.  If we combine 
that analysis also with a sober review of unspent OSCE 
resources in past years, and the programs that are 
historically inefficient in utilizing budget allocations, we 
believe we will significantly help our ACMF experts to move 
ahead on the 2010 Unified Budget proposal. 
 
We recognize there will be those who would say that 
everything the organization does is somehow, by definition, a 
top priority.  Such a viewpoint ignores the reality of scarce 
resources.  Such a view also ignores the fact that some 
programs may have been useful ten or fifteen years ago, but 
may have lost their relevance over the course of the years. 
Yet other programs may, in fact, have successfully completed 
their tasks, but continue merely due to bureaucratic inertia. 
 We believe that the prioritization exercise we propose will 
help us clean out these completed or expired programs, 
allowing the organization to focus on its true value added as 
we move into the second decade of the 21st century. 
 
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 
CLINTON