In response to “Pabriks denied in OSCE challenge”

The article, “Pabriks denied in OSCE challenge,” (TBT no. 711, July 15) contains a fundamental error, which completely invalidates the basic premise of the article. 

The 10-year limit on employment in the OSCE, cited in the article, does not pertain to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, an independent institution within the OSCE.  In the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, like in all other international parliamentary assemblies, there is no time limit on employment. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has long criticized the OSCE for its 10-year employment limit in that it depletes the organization of good people being forced to leave and of valuable institutional memory.

Thus, in re-electing Mr. Oliver for another five-year term as Secretary General, there was no “serious breach” of the rules of employment, as claimed in the article by an OSCE official in Vienna, hiding his/her false charges behind anonymity. In fact, there was no breach of any rules.

The Standing Committee voted overwhelmingly, 41 - 2,  to re-new Mr. Oliver’s mandate in accordance with existing rules, with only Latvia and the Czech Republic voting no. Neither Lithuania nor Estonia voted against Mr. Oliver.
The article makes a point of the fact that a new Secretary General needs consensus-minus-one to be elected, but it fails to point out that in the OSCE in Vienna consensus, i.e., total unanimity, is required when approving the appointments of all senior positions, a fact that the Parliamentary Assembly has criticized time and time again.

Sincerely,
Klas Bergman
Director of Communications, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
Copenhagen, July 19, 2010