Written interview of OSCE Secretary General Helga Maria Schmid with Tagesspiegel

Translation from German: Written interview of OSCE Secretary General Helga Maria Schmid with Tagesspiegel

Ms Schmid, 30 years ago, after his first visit to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel said, shaking his head, "This is a talking shop." Was he right?

No. The OSCE came into being during the Cold War, in the midst of confrontation between countries that had very different ideas about the world. It was very important to sit down at a table and talk with each other. Back then, we didn't exchange pleasantries, we came to concrete results. That was the right thing to do then, and it still is.

You worked as a desk officer in Kinkel's office from 1994 to 1998. Did he change his mind on how important the OSCE was and is?

Absolutely, Klaus Kinkel also took part in OSCE ministerial meetings. I wouldn't take his saying, which you quote, literally.

In the meantime, Russia's war of aggression has destroyed the European post-war order. The OSCE was an important building block of this order. Doesn't this invalidate the premise of your work?

We in the OSCE have really tried everything to prevent the use of military means on the part of Russia. As recently as the beginning of February 2022, we offered Russia a new security dialogue at ministerial level, in which everyone's grievances could be heard and attempts would be made to solve the problems together, at the negotiating table. The OSCE has 57 participating States. 56 of them were ready for this new security dialogue. Only the representatives of one country opposed it.

You are talking about Russia...

That's right. In retrospect, one suspects why: the Moscow leadership had long since made its decision at that point.

How do you deal with the new situation that arose last year?

24 February was a nightmare for all of us. I woke up at five o'clock that morning. The first thing I did was to call the head of our civilian observer mission, which at its peak had 1,300 staff working all over Ukraine. At that point, they were monitoring the ceasefire on the line of contact, negotiating local ceasefires so that damaged infrastructure could be repaired, and supporting the civilian population on both sides.

Didn't you have to get your people to safety?

The head of the mission was in Kyiv, I could hear the sirens wailing in the background. We were able to get all of the 500 international staff members who were still in the country out in the following weeks, the local Ukrainian men were not allowed to leave because of martial law. One of our Ukrainian staff was killed in a rocket attack when she went to a pharmacy to buy medicine for a close relative.

Without unanimity, could the OSCE even respond to the attack politically?

Let me offer an example. Shortly after the war began, a clear majority of OSCE countries activated the so-called Moscow Mechanism in the OSCE. It allows experts to document violations of international humanitarian law in Ukraine.

Nevertheless, Russia is blocking the OSCE budget because it can only be adopted unanimously. How can you continue to work despite this?

Unfortunately, we had to end our field missions and projects in Ukraine at first. But since then we established a completely new funding model in which a large number of countries directly fund projects in Ukraine. I am really proud of that. This way, we can work in Ukraine again and help the civilian population, for example with humanitarian demining, strengthening cybersecurity or supporting women who have been victims of violence.

But isn't your organisation, which is supposed to provide security and cooperation in Europe, completely deprived of its foundation?

At first glance, your question is quite understandable, but no: we maintain a total of twelve field missions in Central Asia, South-East Europe and Moldova. The mission in Moldova is a very important mission because we are the only organisation that continues to monitor the situation in the so-called security zone and act as a mediator in the resolution of the Transdniestrian conflict between the two sides.

Are you also preparing for the day when hopefully a ceasefire or even a just peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine will have to be monitored?

I can quote Federal President Steinmeier on this, who was recently asked in an interview by a journalist about China's peace plan and said: Every constructive proposal aimed at a just peaceful solution is welcome, but for this, one must not only talk with Moscow, but above all with Kyiv - and this must happen under the umbrella of the United Nations. If these conditions are met, the OSCE is prepared to make its contribution, as we have done in the past.

Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. What is the OSCE doing to help the refugees?

Unfortunately, organised crime is profiting from this war. The refugees are 90 per cent women and children. On the internet, the demand for prostitution with Ukrainian women and for child pornography has risen exorbitantly within the last year. Human traffickers are often waiting at the borders, luring women with false promises. And we’re working to counter this. We have started awareness and help campaigns on the internet and established hotlines, where we advise women who might be vulnerable. And we are in close contact with the countries that offer protection to Ukrainians who have fled.

The Helsinki Final Act is the founding document of your work. It guarantees the right of every state to territorial integrity, freedom and security. What are these sentences still worth?

These principles continue to apply and do not become false just because a country tramples them. On the contrary, last year the OSCE Ministerial Council met in Poland with more than 40 ministers. They explicitly reaffirmed our principles.

Why does the majority that subscribes to these principles not exclude Russia?

We have no mechanism to show a participating State the door. Nevertheless, there is no doubt in the OSCE as to whom the aggressor is. And even I, as Secretary General, say clearly: this is a war of aggression. Nevertheless, I would be against excluding Russia, even if there were a procedure for doing so. It remains important that the OSCE ambassadors of all member countries sit around a table every Thursday and talk.

What do you discuss there?

There is no exchange of pleasantries; differences are clearly stated. The first item on the agenda is always the war against Ukraine, and Russia's diplomatic representatives regularly have to face harsh criticism there. But channels of dialogue remain important, for example in the fight against climate change, which I see as one of the most existential issues of the 21st century.

You also had a channel of communication with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for many years. Is it still intact?

We had a lot of contact during the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme. There has been no contact since 24 February 2022.

You mention the agreement with Tehran, which hardly anyone knows better than the former head of the European External Action Service.

That's probably true, because I negotiated large parts of the nuclear agreement myself.

How far away is Iran from access to nuclear weapons?

According to the latest reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the situation is dramatic. Iran is technically capable of enriching uranium to more than 83 per cent, which is not far from the bomb. Under the nuclear agreement, enrichment was limited to 3.6 per cent.

You played a leading role in negotiating the agreement for the EU. When you see the uprisings in Iran today and the violent reaction of the regime, which was in a way stabilised by the agreement: Was the attempt nevertheless the right one?

Absolutely. Unfortunately, an immense opportunity was later wasted. We had initially concentrated on the most urgent problem, the nuclear issue. Our goal was always to enter into broader cooperation with the country after the nuclear issue had been solved, in order to be able to contribute positively to change. The EU has made such offers to Iran, for example in the environmental field. A human rights dialogue has also been initiated.

But?

Unfortunately, the former US President Donald Trump then decided to withdraw from the agreement on 8 May 2018. Until then, the IAEA had clearly documented every quarter that Iran had fulfilled all its obligations under the agreement. But after the US withdrew, Iran no longer felt bound by it, and the government of Hassan Rohani, which was willing to negotiate at the time, was replaced.

The EU held out prospects of investments in Iran. Why didn't they make any progress?

After Trump's exit, the EU remained united in its commitment to the agreement. But European banks and companies were also affected by the extraterritorial sanctions imposed by the US and understandably did not want to jeopardise their American business and therefore refrained from doing business with Iran.

As a female diplomat, did you generally have to overcome resistance that male colleagues did not face?

Even as a young female diplomat, I had the experience that my arguments were not taken note of when I brought them up in a meeting. But when a man made the very same arguments just moments later, everyone responded. That is an experience young women unfortunately still have today. I was the first speaker in the Foreign Minister's office, the first woman to head it, and I was the first woman to head the EU External Action Service.

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has just had guidelines for a feminist foreign policy drawn up for the Federal Foreign Office. Do you welcome that?

Yes, I very much appreciate Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock's commitment. It has been scientifically proven that peace negotiations are more successful in the long term when women are involved in them. The OSCE has long been committed to equal inclusion for women, we have set up many programmes for this. We also have 50 per cent women at director level.

When it comes to Iran's nuclear programme, diplomacy seems to be at an end, similar to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. Does that discourage you as a diplomat?

Of course not. Diplomacy is still crucial, especially conflict prevention, such as the OSCE's work at the community level, for example in the countries of South-East Europe. What is true for so many areas is unfortunately also true for the OSCE: as long as there is no noise, only a few people are interested in it, but that does not make our work any less valuable.