Mr Soros was invited to address the Permanent Council of the OSCE by the current Chairman-in-Office, the Netherlands. A written speech was circulated a day in advance of his presentation to allow the Ambassadors time to prepare their responses. Here follows a summary of the remarks made by Mr Soros at the permanent council itself, and of the Ambassadors' responses. It was a very successful occasion, everyone welcomed the opportunity to hear Mr Soros speak, and a number of delegations expressed the hope that he would return to the Council to speak on another occasion.

We would encourage National Foundations to use the fact that Mr Soros has addressed the Permanent Council as an opening to establish or deepen contact with their local OSCE field office. It is a considerable endorsement of OSI and the Soros Foundations Network (SFN) by the OSCE's highest body.

Remarks by George Soros

Our mission is closely allied - you talk about comprehensive security, I talk about open society. The best way to prevent conflict is to build open societies. Both our organizations do conflict prevention in a very comprehensive way. The major area of activity that I am involved in, which is missing from your work, is education. We have been spending one third of our money on education.

You are an intergovernmental organization which suffers from the difficulties associated with building consensus. We are a civil society organization. We should work together more, building on contacts we already have in the field. I am glad to be here today to further contact between the top levels of our organizations, to complement all the contact which is taking place at lower levels. Considering the constraints you operate under as an intergovernmental organization, you should be very proud of the work you have accomplished. You can never know when you have prevented a conflict. You have, in particular, played a great role in dealing with nationalities. For this reason you should retain your comprehensive approach to security and ensure that you do not diminish the importance of the human dimension. That is the area where we share common goals to the greatest extent.

The task before us will be difficult. Bad government is the greatest source of misery, conflict and poverty. It is very difficult to interfere in the internal affairs of a country because of sovereignty. But how does one help develop good governance and foster democracy? The OSCE is making a great contribution. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union there was an absence of governance and outside assistance was very welcome. However now the principle of sovereignty has taken on increased significance and therefore outside intervention is resisted. But it is possible to intervene in a way which is welcomed by taking affirmative, constructive action - by bringing benefits. But not enough is being done in that direction.

The OSCE should therefore pay increased attention to building open societies. This is particularly important in Central Asia - where there are no other international organizations -, the Caucasus and the Balkans. More attention has been paid to Central Asia, especially by the US, in the aftermath of 11 September 2001. But the objective of this increased attention has not been to build open society, the motives are rather questionable. Building open society should rank higher among the political priorities of the member states of the OSCE. However, overall I have a very positive view of the OSCE.

[Mr Soros then spoke about the Soros Foundations network. He explained that the National Foundation (NF) boards are composed of civil society, but that civil society is only one part of open society. He stated that the SFN has an even broader agenda than the OSCE's because we also deal with education. He said that some foundations are better than others as we have a very delegated authority. In a similar way to the way in which the OSCE's field offices are of mixed quality. He explained that his views on the region are based on the platform of the NFs.]

One area where the OSCE has not paid as much attention as it ought is HIV/AIDS and the effects that drug trafficking has on this disease. The rate of growth of HIV/AIDS is fastest in this region, though it is not as widespread as it is in Africa. One of the lessons is insufficient awareness of the problem. My Foundation is very involved in harm reduction, reducing the harm caused by drug use and drug trafficking. I urge you to pay attention to this. Maybe you could establish a position to work with governments to look at this. Government regulators often interfere with harm reduction. We have to look at the human element of drug use - drug users and those infected by AIDS through the use of dirty needles. The OSCE is well positioned to emphasise the human and public health aspect of the drugs problem.

Human trafficking and organised crime are very important and growing problems. Civil society should be engaged in addressing these issues. My network's women's program is very engaged in this.

There could be greater interaction between an intergovernmental organization like yours and civil society. I was in Moldova not long ago. I found considerable resistance to the OSCE plan and suspicion and hostility because people were not informed. I am pleased to note that your chairman went to Moldova and visited people and they had a sense of being involved in the process. Settling the issue is a major task. It is not possible to create a federal structure without creating a democratic structure. The emphasis on democracy is very important and the OSCE can provide an example by consulting with civil society. My foundations would be happy to act as an intermediary to convoke civil society for you to meet.

I would particularly like to emphasise the issue of transparency in the use of revenues from the exploitation of natural resources. Many countries in the region are rich in natural resources. If one looks at the rest of the world, especially Africa, one sees that in the countries that are rich in natural resources the people are poor. The benefits do not reach them. On the contrary, resources become an incentive for bribery and corruption. I once made an in-depth study of Africa, which took precisely 48 hours. Some countries were rich in resources, others were poor. But the people were poor everywhere. Those countries which were rich in resources had more conflict and more corruption, for example Congo. But some of the most democratic governments were to be found in the poorest countries, like Senegal and Mali. We must ensure that people get more benefit from resources.

I sponsor a movement called "Publish What You Pay", which requires resource companies to disclose what they pay individual countries. Governments can then be held to account. This movement has gained a lot of ground. It was endorsed by the UK government and they convoked a meeting. They have now established the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This is a global issue, not just for this region. It is high on the agenda to be discussed at the G8. It is therefore very relevant for the OSCE.

We have established the Caspian Revenue Watch. Great progress could be made in this region. Azerbaijan has been particularly responsive, I hope it will be at the forefront, setting an example for others. Kazakhstan ought to be moving in the same direction. I am aware that Giffen has been indicted in the USA. A lot of things have happened in the past. Rather than look back we must look forward. If Kazakhstan were to take this attitude it would help to move the country forward. It is a way of moving forward positively.

Regarding particular countries, I will not go through the whole field. I would mention Georgia, where it is possible for democratic regime change to take place, in a similar way to what happened in Slovakia, Croatia and the former Yugoslavia. Democratic forces and civil society are engaged. It is very important that there should be free and fair elections, which is not at all assured. Of course there are strong forces resisting the OSCE, which can play a decisive role.

In Kyrgyzstan there are also elections coming up, and the OSCE can make a major contribution here too.

I am surprised I have to draw your attention to Romania. Romania is viewed very favourably, you had a very capable Chairman of the OSCE last year [2001]. In many ways Romania has made great progress, so it is disturbing to find retrograde developments. I quote article 270 (1) of the draft penal code. [GS quoted the entire draft article.] If this passes it will be very difficult for my foundation to criticise the government for passing this law. I would have to be careful visiting Romania myself, I might be arrested for having brought this to your attention. There are worrying developments with regard to political parties, which must now have 25,000 members, and other regulations also interfere in the functioning of existing parties. Restrictions placed on NGOs are turning them into GONGOs. There are deficiencies in the proposed regulation on corruption. These are issues which come directly within the purview of the OSCE.

Of course the Balkans remain a matter of grave concern and great importance. I was asked how I intended to respond to the Iraq war, and I said I will respond by paying more attention to the Balkans. There are many unsettled issues. The primary responsibility for the Balkans lies with the EU, but the OSCE played a very constructive role. There is a lot more to be done in that area, and especially in the area of media freedom. My written speech contains more specific suggestions with regard to the EU's summit in June.

Maybe the most important proposal I would like to lay before you concerns the issue of Roma. My network is very concerned with the Roma issue. It is the major unresolved problem relating to an ethnic and economic minority. These people are neglected and disenfranchised. We need a major initiative to address this issue. But the issue cannot be solved quickly. My foundations have been engaged, and the last ten years have seen considerable progress. I propose that we declare the years 2005 to 2015 the Decade of Roma Inclusion. There is a major conference planned for Budapest sponsored by the EU, the World Bank and OSI, with the support of most governments. I would like to see a decision come out of this to plan for a decade of inclusion. We need a year to prepare a proposal including concrete targets and actions to achieve these targets. We would probably need another meeting to launch it. I ask all the delegations here to inform their governments what is cooking and get their collaboration. The idea of a decade is getting a very good reception. Hungary is paying a lot of attention to the issue, and Slovakia is very concerned. This needs to be done, and I use this occasion to ask you to inform your governments, and maybe also ask the OSCE to take part in this because it covers your area. The OSCE could well be the most appropriate organization to launch the decade.

EU response - see separate attachment.

US response - see separate attachment.

Russia's response
The Russian Ambassador stated that he agreed with some of Mr Soros' comments, but not with others, and that evaluation and conclusions should be objective and based on an in-depth knowledge of the situation. He emphasised the key features of the OSCE as being consensus and equal participation of all states. In his view there is one major issue for the OSCE which Mr Soros did not address, and that is the geographical balance of the organization. The perception is that the OSCE only deals with problems to the east of Vienna, but this is not the case. The organization should take steps to redress this balance. The Ambassador asked to hear Mr Soros's views on corruption and drug trafficking in the whole of the OSCE area. The way in which these issues are dealt with in the older democratic countries dictates how they are dealt with in newly democratic countries. He expressed the hope that when Mr Soros comes back to the OSCE he can deal with a wider series of issues and problems.

Georgia's response
The Georgian Ambassador welcomed Mr Soros' comments. But he stated that referring to Adjara and Javakheti as being potential conflict areas was out of all proportion, and was pure speculation. He said that any potential problems in these areas were being addressed by the Georgian government, and the OSCE's High Commissioner on National Minorities was also paying great attention to them. He felt it was inappropriate to mention these two areas in a formal setting. He said that since time immemorial Georgia has been a haven of tolerance, and the government and President Shevardnadze have both taken steps to stop the harassment of religious groups in Georgia by a small group of Christian fundamentalists. Finally he stated that Georgia looks forward to living up the challenge of the forthcoming elections and showing that it is not a failed state but rather a democracy.

Armenia's response
The Armenian Ambassador wished to engage Mr Soros in a philosophical and moral debate about open society. He also stated that there should be a better balance in the organization between east and west, in order for the notion of open society to be more meaningful. He pointed out that just as closed societies can become open, open societies can shrink, and one of the greatest threats to open society is the balance between security and freedom. In order to change society, mentalities have to be changed. He mentioned that the related issues of HIV/AIDs and drugs deserved more attention. He also said that it was important not to reduce the democratic concept to elections alone, and said that Mr Soros was wise not to list elections among the areas in which his foundations work. He pointed out that in some great democracies the turnout at elections is so low that their legitimacy is questionable.

Uzbekistan's response
The Uzbek Ambassador also welcomed Mr Soros to the Permanent Council. He noted with satisfaction that OSI's objectives correspond to the Uzbek government's objectives, namely working with NGOs, increasing knowledge regarding human rights, and education. He thanked Mr Soros for the work that has been done in Uzbekistan since the foundation opened in 1996, particularly in the sphere of education. He also mentioned training of journalists and promoting use of the internet. He described education as being particularly important in order to ensure a secure future for our society, and to prevent our young people falling under evil influences. He referred to the findings of the UN's special rapporteur on torture, and stated that while this may occur it is not a systematic practice. The government is fighting human rights violations and torture. They want to work with organizations to help them in this fight.

Moldova's response
The Moldovan Ambassador thanked Mr Soros and agreed that a comprehensive approach to security is necessary. She stated that the Soros foundation in Moldova is one of the most popular institutions in the country. She repeated concern about the closed nature of society in Transnistria, and cautioned against disproportionate leverage being afforded to the Transnistrian side at this delicate stage of the negotiations. She also agreed that a lot needs to be done to increase social dialogue and to enhance the role of NGOs from both sides of the Dniester. The conflict in Moldova is currently enjoying renewed attention, which is long overdue.

Romania's response - see separate attachment

Macedonia's response
The Macedonian Ambassador warmly welcomed Mr Soros's comments. She thought it was important for the OSCE to pay attention to HIV/AIDS, and to strengthen its work on the economic and social aspects of drug trafficking. She also attached great importance to the fight against organised crime and welcomed the London conference's conclusions. With regard to the Western Balkans she stated that the situation is improved, but much remains to be done, and she shared the view that the danger now is social and economic dislocation. Macedonia has also been advocating for the reform of existing EU policy and instruments. Socio-economic cohesion should be promoted. The gap between the Western Balkans and the rest of the region should not widen but rather decrease. She has high hopes for the summit in Thessaloniki. She underlined the close cooperation between the government and the Soros Foundation in Macedonia, especially in the human dimension.

Tajikistan's response
The Tajik Ambassador welcomed Mr Soros to the Permanent Council, and expressed support for the OSCE to work on the economic and social effects of the drugs trade, and its adverse effect on populations' health. He also explained that a commission had been set up under the government to examine the introduction of a moratorium on the death penalty. He expressed gratitude to Mr Soros and his foundation for work that has been done in Tajikistan, particularly with regard to the media.

Hungary's response
The Hungarian Ambassador expressed the Hungarian government's support for the conference on Roma they are hosting in June-July, and thanked Mr Soros for bringing the OSCE's attention to this.

Serbia and Montenegro's response
The Ambassador expressed deep gratitude for those who have benefited from the foundation's activities in Yugoslavia, and for its assistance in bringing about democratic changes. He also agreed with Mr Soros's comments on the Western Balkans - south eastern Europe should not be forgotten. He stated that many issues to be solved are of a regional nature.

Ukraine's response
The Ambassador welcomed Mr Soros, stated that a number of the points he made about Ukraine in his written address were not based in reality, and said that his speech should be more balanced. He wished Mr Soros well in his future philanthropic activities.

Belarus's response
The Belarusian Ambassador welcomed Mr Soros to the Permanent Council. He professed respect for the personal views of a famous philanthropist, said that his analysis was interesting but it was not uncontroversial and did not fully represent the situation. The assessment of the situation in Belarus is grotesquely negative and based on a standard series of political cliches. Mr Soros has clearly received inaccurate information, either due to a lack of information or dependency on politically engaged sources. The OSCE as an organization has moved on from distorting the facts, and is based on mutual respect. Problems in the development of any country are inevitable. He wished Mr Soros success in his philanthropic work.

George Soros's response
He expressed appreciation for the praise and good wishes he had received and reciprocated these. He said he was pleased with the work of his foundations, both in the countries which mentioned them specifically and elsewhere.

He explained that his remarks focused on the east because that is where his foundations are active. His views about the deficiencies of the global system and his severe disagreement with the Bush doctrine are available. It is not appropriate to express those views in the OSCE. Instead he does this within the USA. If anyone is interested, recent speeches he has made on this subject can be made available.

He stated that the EU Thessaloniki Summit might be the best forum to deal with south eastern Europe. In response to Serbia and Montenegro, he said that the EU has been very active in trying to preserve the status quo and leave unresolved issues like Kosovo in limbo. This is a mistake. Energy should be devoted to settling these issues.

In response to Romania, he stated that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ambassador were clearly among the most enlightened parts of the Romanian government, and he would like to work with them to clear up these issues. The fact that other countries have similar legislation is not a satisfactory response. He promised to share a paper detailing the matter. [The paper, prepared by OSF-Romania, was distributed.] The EU should pay attention to these problems and work to have them resolved.

His response to the Belarusian Ambassador was that the political situation in Belarus is grotesque. The Soros foundation there was expelled, just as the OSCE mission was last year. He expressed hope that with the new OSCE mission there, progress will be made.

Conclusion
The Chair, Ambassador Justus de Visser, thanked Mr Soros for his presence and remarks. He hoped that this marked the beginning of better cooperation between the top levels of OSI and the OSCE, to complement the good cooperation already happening at lower levels.

Many of the themes Mr Soros highlighted are very close to the Netherlands' agenda for the OSCE, so there is obviously room for continuing cooperation. He welcomed the expression of such frank opinions on all sides of the table - it was the first that he had heard the word "grotesque" mentioned in the room. Mr Soros's presence seems to have stimulated the Permanent Council into being a microcosm of open society.

Emma Basker
OSI-Brussels
April 2003