|
More Interfax’s interviews...
OSCE/ODIHR Director Christian Strohal: I am confident that we will again see the openness of the Russian approach to international observation of its elections
OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) at the beginning of February announced that it decided against sending observers to monitor Russia's presidential elections. Russia voiced regret and once again spoke out for developing common rules for ODIHR observers indicating the duration and size of observer missions.
ODIHR Director Christian Strohal commented on the approach of his office to this and other issues in an interview granted to Interfax correspondent Temir Karimov.
Do you share the view that the ODIHR and Russia are in a state of bitter confrontation? If you do, what do you see as the ultimate cause of this confrontation?
No. Nobody confronts anybody. The ODIHR explained to the Russian authorities that we regret that the restrictions imposed on us did not allow us to deploy a comprehensive and long-term mission to observe the upcoming presidential election in respect for our mandate. But we also made it clear that we remain committed to assisting Russia with implementing its human rights commitments. In particular, we expect to continue the dialogue with the Russian authorities in view of future elections, and I am confident that we will again see the transparency and openness that characterized the Russian approach to international observation of its elections in the past.
Is the five-day difference between the earliest date of arrival as set for ODIHR observers by Russia and the latest date of February 15 that was sought by the ODIHR as important as to have led the ODIHR to its refusal to monitor the election?
We explained to the Russian authorities that deployment any later than 15 February would not allow us to fulfill our mandate for long-term election observation. Even that date would have meant an exceptionally late start for an observation mission, which normally is deployed several weeks in advance of election day so that it can observe the entire electoral process. Therefore, we would have wanted an earlier start than 15 February.
An electoral process exemplifies the nature of implementation of numerous obligations under international human rights law. Anybody reading the OSCE commitments can see that they are of a long term nature, starting with the rights to be a candidate, to establish political parties in full freedom, and to conduct political campaigns without administrative obstacles. Observation concerns all these aspects.
Deployment on 15 February would have been already a full two weeks into in the election campaign, and two weeks after completion of candidate registration. Also, the process of early voting can start on 15 February, and we considered it important to observe this process in its entirety. More generally, a later deployment would have rendered it impossible for us to give a comprehensive, objective and professional assessment of the whole election process in the Russian Federation, and provide useful recommendations. So it was a difference of having one or two weeks of observation, which is a very significant difference, especially with a limited number of observers.
Do you accept the Russian point that stricter rules should be set for election observation by the ODIHR, among other things that the duration of an ODIHR mission’s stay in a country and its number of members should be documented?
We have a clear mandate from the participating States of the OSCE to observe not only election day, but the entire electoral process – before, during and after the election. The procedures of ODIHR election observations are transparently laid out in a handbook, which was developed at the request of the participating States in the 1990s and has since been used as a basis for over a hundred observation missions throughout the OSCE region - these include several in the Russian Federation which we were able to conduct in the past without any of the current restrictions and limitations. All our observations are fully transparent and documented, and numerous visits to our website are witness to the broad international interest in this regard. It is of course up to the participating States of the OSCE to determine whether they want to adapt rules for election observation, which would require consensus in the Organization’s governing body.
Your tenure as Director of the ODIHR will be over soon. What candidates for this position is the OSCE considering? Who would you like to succeed you? Are you planning to seek reappointment as Director of the ODIHR?
My tenure as ODIHR Director was prolonged for another two years in 2006 and now comes to an end. The process of selecting my successor is currently underway. This process is led by Finland, which currently holds the OSCE Chairmanship, in consultation with OSCE participating States.
More Interfax’s interviews...
|
