Mr. Chairman, before I do anything else, I want to express, on behalf of myself and my government, our heartfelt condolences to the Russian Federation on the death of Deputy Foreign Minister Yevgeniy Gusarov. Our collaboration with him, which included the "Threats to Security and Stability" paper now being considered by participating States, was always productive. He was a valued colleague, someone whose knowledge of, and commitment to, the OSCE were unquestionable. We extend our sympathies to his family and to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, it is once again my pleasure to represent the United States at a Reinforced Permanent Council meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to share with you our views on what we would like to see accomplished at the upcoming OSCE Ministerial in Oporto this December.

As I noted in my remarks at our meeting at the end of June, September 11 demonstrated that our world is changing, not always in positive ways, and that OSCE needs to change in response.

We all need to work together to find ways to focus and strengthen this institution so that it is prepared to meet the new threats and new challenges we face.

Over the past few months, the U.S. delegation has introduced some ideas of its own for change, and we have been working with others on additional ideas. These are aimed at giving further shape and substance to our efforts, begun last year at Bucharest and Bishkek, to strengthen the ability of this organization to combat terrorism and to bring greater balance into the work of OSCE, so that it continues to make a substantial contribution to security and cooperation in Europe in all three of its dimensions.

These two goals are brought together in our proposal to establish an annual Security Review Conference. This will provide us with an enduring forum for, among other things, evaluating the work of the OSCE in promoting progress on its counter-terrorism agenda, and help serve as a spur to continued OSCE efforts in this area.

Since it will focus on the full range of OSCE activity in the security field, including in field missions and regional conflicts, it will cast needed attention on the politico-military dimension of security work of the OSCE, bringing greater balance into its activities.

We are pleased at the positive comments we have received from many delegations regarding our proposal, and want to make clear that we remain flexible as to the specific modalities of the Conference. But we would very much like to see the Conference formally adopted by the OSCE at the Oporto Ministerial. Indeed, we see this as one of the key deliverables for this meeting.

As we have conceived it, the Security Review Conference would consist, inter alia, of the following elements:

In discussing the Conference proposal with other delegations, we have found considerable support for holding a two or three day meeting here in Vienna, but, as I have noted, we are flexible with respect to the exact details.

A number of interlocutors have also suggested using the Conference as a forum for generating new OSCE commitments in the security dimension. These are all proposals we would be prepared to consider.

Our one caveat would be that, while we could agree to set aside a session where new proposals could be introduced, we believe any such proposals should subsequently be negotiated in the Permanent Council and approved at OSCE ministerials.

Let me also reiterate what I have said previously, that we do not want or intend this Conference to replace or duplicate the work of the Forum for Security Cooperation or to supplant its own Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting. However, we would be prepared to welcome a proposal to set aside a portion of the Security Review Conference for a report from the FSC chairman.

As OSCE member states know, my delegation has been working with others on a paper – "Threats to Security and Stability in the 21^st Century" – discussing the broad range of security threats and challenges facing us, and what the OSCE might do about them. This exercise has helped make clear to us that -— mass terror of the September 11 variety aside -— most of those threats and challenges are not new at all, but have been with us in the modern world for some time. In addition to "classic" security threats, these also include institutional, social and economic conditions that affect nations’ stability and ability to transform themselves into modern, peaceful democratic states. OSCE is, in fact, already engaged in efforts to deal with many of them.

We do not believe that there are dramatic steps that the OSCE can take by itself to address these problems, but there are clearly areas where it can make a substantial and even unique contribution, working with others, towards their resolution. The "Threats" paper currently being drafted offers a good overview of both the range of issues to be dealt with under the broad heading of "security and stability," and of areas on which OSCE should focus its own efforts. We recognize that much more work will be needed during the coming year in developing concrete actions and approaches that OSCE can take to better engage on these matters. We stand ready to continue working with other delegations to make this a truly meaningful project.

Another important idea that has emerged in the security dimension during the past year comes from our Portuguese Chairman-in Office. This is the proposal for an OSCE Charter on Terrorism.

We support a Charter that is short and contains commitments of an enduring character. We have participated actively in the preparation of the current text and believe that we now have in hand a document that will be worthy of adoption by ministers in Oporto. This Charter will not only stand on its own merits but will be able to serve as a focus for the counter-terrorism element of the annual Security Review Conference in the years ahead.

In tandem with the Charter, we also believe that Oporto should adopt a second document highlighting implementation achievements, setting our priorities for the coming year, and reaffirming our political commitment to keep the fight against terror in the forefront of our activities. While this is a function that the Security Review Conference can fulfill in future years, we believe that it would be appropriate and important to produce a record documenting the important steps that the OSCE has taken in fulfilling these historic undertakings.

Let me make special mention of our efforts to create a listing of projects on combating terrorism. This project, based on a recommendation made jointly by the United States and Russia, can be an important asset in the efforts of the OSCE to coordinate with the United Nations, which also plans to develop a terrorism-related database. This would also strengthen the role of the OSCE as the organization best suited to implement UNSCR 1373 in Europe.

We would also reiterate our hope that all participating states should complete the FATF self-assessment exercise by Oporto. We should then set our sights on committing to implement the FATF's Eight Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing, as well as the 40 Recommendations on Money Laundering.

Also in the security dimension, the United States has reacted with interest to the Food-for-Thought paper on peacekeeping presented by the Russian Federation in July.

We can support a tasking at Oporto to establish a working group under the Permanent Council to update and expand, if necessary, OSCE procedures for conducting peacekeeping operations first promulgated at the 1992 Helsinki Summit. Once these procedures have been agreed, we would support testing them by having the FSC hold a "table-top" exercise or exercises.

Mr. Chairman, as we look forward to the messages our ministers will collectively deliver at Oporto, we expect to address non-regional, regional and other issues on which the OSCE is actively engaged, in both the Political Declaration and in a separate Statement on Regional Issues. In particular, we look forward to positive results towards meeting the commitments undertaken by Russia at the Istanbul Summit in 1999, which will enable all parties to the CFE Treaty to move forward toward ratification of the adapted Treaty. Progress on Istanbul Commitments must remain a critical priority. We also hope to see identified at Oporto a number of key regional issues. Our Ministerial Documents must somehow reflect our commitment to enhance cooperation with NATO and the EU.

The United States also supports broadening the work of the OSCE in the economic dimension.

The OSCE has a strong record in implementing useful programs to promote transparency and good governance. We believe this work should be expanded and built upon as corruption and lack of good governance facilitate or exacerbate so many of the cross cutting issues in our region. Corruption in particular is an enormous obstacle to business and economic development and outside investment. Lack of good governance facilitates trafficking, organized criminal activity, and unsound economic policy decisions. We favor creating a position in the Office of the Economic Coordinator that would focus entirely on promoting transparency and good governance.

We believe there is room for the OSCE to expand into business development and promoting entrepreneurship. This ties in nicely with the Trafficking theme of the next Economic Forum; one of the ways the OSCE can help keep people out of trafficking is by facilitating the development of legitimate economic activity. A number of these economic dimension activities feature prominently in the "Threats to Security and Stability paper."

It seems to us that our efforts to bring greater balance into the work of the OSCE should be mirrored in the mandates and work of OSCE field missions. Our 20 field missions continue to serve, in our view, as the most effective instrument at the OSCE’s disposal to support host states’ desires to strengthen their democratic institutions, their respect for human rights, and their implementation of rule of law. As Ambassador Minikes noted in his recent Permanent Council intervention in response to EU High representative Solana, we believe there is a great importance in ensuring that the mandated work of our field missions and operations can continue until effectively completed.

As I noted during my last appearance here, however, we also believe that OSCE missions and field operations could play a more active role in implementing agreed OSCE activities in the security and economic dimensions. Some states, including Tajikistan and Ukraine, have worked cooperatively with the Chair this year to address concerns and modify as appropriate their mandates to meet current needs.

Belarus, in contrast, has expelled international members of an OSCE field presence and absolutely refused to negotiate with the OSCE Chair or this Permanent Council. As recently as yesterday, Belarus advised that it would not entertain negotiations on a future OSCE presence until the Permanent Council adopted a decision formally closing the AMG. This announcement contravenes the position conveyed by Belarusian Foreign Minister Khovstov who in New York only a month ago informed Chairman-in-Office Portuguese Foreign Minister da Cruz that he would instruct the Permanent Representative of Belarus to negotiate an immediate resolution of this problem. Mr. Chairman, this matter is no longer about respect for the views of a host State, but rather respect of a participating State for the principles of this organization and the decisions of this Permanent Council. Such conduct in contravention of OSCE principles and decisions undermines the integrity of this organization and is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman we urge you to dispatch a senior level visit to Minsk for the purpose of negotiating a resolution of this matter. Absent a functioning mission, we request you place discussion of developments in Belarus on the PC agenda until this matter is resolved. Unless Belarus engages in a constructive dialogue with the Chair, there will be further consequences for our bilateral relations. In the run-up to the Oporto Ministerial, this Permanent Council and its respective Participating States, need also to consider the mechanisms, processes, and instruments at our disposal to address this issue. In closing on this matter, we, once again, urge President Lukashenko to change course.

Mr. Chairman, as I have suggested, the OSCE has a tremendous record of success with its field missions and operations, and the supporting and facilitating role they provide host states. In this regard, we believe that field operations should, to the extent appropriate within their mandates, work with host governments, civil society and NGOs to make available expertise and advice across the human, security and economic dimensions. While they should maintain full freedom, in accord with their mandates, to develop their own projects, OSCE field missions and other operations should also seek out the views of host governments and others on what might be helpful projects within mission mandates, and to work as collaboratively as possible with their hosts. OSCE missions and other field operations may also be able to serve as the interface through which OSCE activities in all three baskets are managed.

Consequently, we recommend that the Oporto Ministerial establish a working group that would develop this concept for field missions and report its findings to the Permanent Council by April 15, 2003.

Broadening our activities into other areas, however, cannot detract from the work of more fully implementing our human dimension commitments. The Human Dimension remains key to the OSCE's approach to comprehensive security. Time after time we find that respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, rule of law and democratic institutions contribute not only to promoting peace and security, but also to reducing support for terrorism and extremism.

To this end, it is important to continually review our implementation of OSCE human dimension commitments and, where needed, refine and further develop them. This year's Human Dimension Implementation Meeting was one of the most successful in recent years, not only in terms of governmental and non-governmental participation, but also in its results-oriented approach. We believe there could be a number of deliverables for the Oporto Ministerial stemming from the Implementation Meeting in the areas of trafficking in human beings, anti-Semitism, Roma/Sinti rights and other issues regarding tolerance. Recommendations to elaborate election standards, however, need to be studied carefully. We note, for example, that the commitments adopted in 1990 by participating States in Copenhagen already represent the most comprehensive compilation of election standards adopted by any international organization. But we retain an open mind.

During the last year, the United States participated in discussions and worked closely with other delegations on how to reform the OSCE.

We recall the progress made on this issue at the June RPC, which culminated in the adoption of two reform papers -- "Improving the Budgetary Management" and the U.S.-Russian document on "Press Statements & Public Information." Also, agreement was reached on two other important decisions: the funding for the Integrated Resource Management System, which is a vital element of the OSCE management agenda, and the "Annual Reporting Requirements" of the Secretariat. We believe that Oporto should make a reference to the good progress made this year in all of the above areas. We look forward to finalizing work on important matters still on the table such as the Staff Regulations and the Financial Regulations, and concluding the reform process at Oporto.

Regarding extra-budgetary contributions, I would stress again (as I did in June) that the United States will not agree with any requirement for missions to get host government approval for activities supported by voluntary contributions, or for allowing the Secretariat to decide political priorities through the budget screening process.

As I have noted in previous appearances before this Council, we should consider how to improve the transition between Chairmen-in-Office. A Permanent Secretary attached to the CiO would help in this regard, as would strengthening the Troika process by, for example, having the previous year's Chairman-in-Office chair the annual security review conference.

On the question of legal status, let me repeat what I said last June. We fully understand the importance of this question to many delegations. We have consulted within our own Administration and with our Congress on this issue. Our very strong sense is one of satisfaction with the way the OSCE is currently structured and firm resistance to making any fundamental changes to its organization.

This means we will not be able to support granting international legal personality to the OSCE. We note, however, that much of the impetus for legal status comes from those who are concerned about diplomatic privileges and immunities for members of OSCE missions and for providing contracting authority. We are fully prepared to support efforts, which could be launched at Oporto, to craft an appropriate convention aimed at providing such protection and authority in cases where it might be needed. This is an important step forward for us and I hope that our colleagues will join us to achieve this goal. I do not see us able to move further on this matter.