:00:00. > :00:11.Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.
:00:12. > :00:15.Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen Sackur.
:00:16. > :00:18.The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe has
:00:19. > :00:22.It was a unique platform for dialogue between the west
:00:23. > :00:25.and the Soviet Bloc on matters of security and human rights.
:00:26. > :00:33.My guest is Lamberto Zannier, Secretary General of the OSCE.
:00:34. > :00:36.In a new era of tension between Moscow and the west,
:00:37. > :01:23.Lamberto Zannier, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you. You have more
:01:24. > :01:29.than 50 member states. European nations and nations far into central
:01:30. > :01:33.Asia as well. They all rhetorically commit themselves to freedom,
:01:34. > :01:38.security and democracy. The problem is that they don't really mean it,
:01:39. > :01:45.half of them. Isn't that the thing that undermines your organization? I
:01:46. > :01:51.wouldn't say it undermines, it gives us a strong agenda and a lot of
:01:52. > :01:55.work, unfortunately. And yes, we have various situations where we see
:01:56. > :01:58.deeper divisions in Europe, we seek confrontation. We see armed conflict
:01:59. > :02:06.reappearing on European soil which we were not really expecting a few
:02:07. > :02:08.years back. And we see challenges to the principles, the fundamental
:02:09. > :02:13.principle that the organization. So that means a lot of work for us. But
:02:14. > :02:15.the problem is from the very get go, the idea was that you would bring
:02:16. > :02:21.together nations who were enemies rather than friends. So you had to
:02:22. > :02:25.let everybody into the club, as it were. It is not like the European
:02:26. > :02:31.Union where you had to qualify by meeting conditions. So half of your
:02:32. > :02:35.members are repressive states which don't allow free press, which are
:02:36. > :02:40.frankly authoritarian if not dictatorships, and you do nothing to
:02:41. > :02:46.control your membership. Well, that's not true. We have
:02:47. > :02:55.institutions like the representative on ethnic minorities, or the freedom
:02:56. > :02:59.of the press or the institutions that deal with human rights and in
:03:00. > :03:06.some areas of the OECD, there is more work to do than others. But
:03:07. > :03:10.have you ever kicked out a member State of the OSCE? It happened in
:03:11. > :03:16.the early 90s but there are some who say consensus rule is a problem and
:03:17. > :03:23.we should move to some kind of a different way. A voting system, a
:03:24. > :03:28.majority system. However there is a strength with our system. Everything
:03:29. > :03:35.we do on the basis of consents and -- consensus, take Ukraine for now,
:03:36. > :03:44.we're dealing with Ukraine, Russia and the United States. It grant
:03:45. > :03:48.legitimacy to what we do and it becomes a strength for the
:03:49. > :03:54.organization. But you frankly only keep that consensus as long as you
:03:55. > :03:59.don't do very much. Let me quote words from Vladimir Putin, not from
:04:00. > :04:07.this year or last year but from 2007 when he said, there was a danger of
:04:08. > :04:10.the OSCE becoming in his words, a vulgar Institute for foreign policy
:04:11. > :04:15.and other countries. He was suspicious of you then and he's even
:04:16. > :04:19.more suspicious of you now. Dealing with Russia is not easy for us, I
:04:20. > :04:23.have to say but one of my jobs is to find the space to deal with them as
:04:24. > :04:26.well. I think that is the whole point of the organization. We
:04:27. > :04:30.provide a whole framework to deal with everybody and because we are a
:04:31. > :04:35.security organization, we take into account the fact that different
:04:36. > :04:40.actors and to different layers in the organization have a very
:04:41. > :04:43.different perspective -- players, and a very different understanding
:04:44. > :04:50.of the security situation and the challenges for them. So this is
:04:51. > :04:53.where we differ a lot from Nato or the European Union. We don't have a
:04:54. > :04:58.core political agenda or a core vision of common security. No. There
:04:59. > :05:03.are many differences, so many I don't know where to begin but with
:05:04. > :05:06.Nato, number one difference is that they can deliver on strategic
:05:07. > :05:13.policies they have and they can deliver, not least with weapons, if
:05:14. > :05:16.you have to. Exactly. You cannot, you are entirely toothless so let's
:05:17. > :05:19.talk about Ukraine and get down to the nitty-gritty and talk about your
:05:20. > :05:23.activities. There you are on the ground where in the country as a
:05:24. > :05:28.whole, you have at least 500 staff, most of them observers. Over 1000.
:05:29. > :05:31.Most of them are observers in eastern Ukraine looking over the
:05:32. > :05:34.conflict zone itself and try to figure out what is happening. In a
:05:35. > :05:38.sense you are the eyes and ears of the international community on the
:05:39. > :05:42.ground in eastern Ukraine. But the trouble is none of your staff can
:05:43. > :05:46.intervene in any way. They can do nothing, they have no weapons even
:05:47. > :05:49.to defend themselves and they are at the mercy of the forces on the
:05:50. > :05:55.ground. Well, first of all my answer to that is that we are the only
:05:56. > :05:59.international organization which managed to engage in that conflict.
:06:00. > :06:05.And we managed that exactly because we are inclusive. You managed that
:06:06. > :06:08.exactly because you're toothless. I wouldn't say we are toothless. Let's
:06:09. > :06:11.look at this example for instance, there are two very different
:06:12. > :06:21.narratives on what is happening in Ukraine. If you look at the Russian
:06:22. > :06:24.media, the way they describe it, the whole government after the whole
:06:25. > :06:27.Maidan process, you hear a very different story from what you hear
:06:28. > :06:31.in the West. I suppose that is what I want to know from you. With all
:06:32. > :06:35.your insight and the people on the ground of the reporting you get from
:06:36. > :06:42.your staff, which of the is closer to the truth? What is the truth?
:06:43. > :06:45.Well the truth we try to report back based on what we see on the ground
:06:46. > :06:49.and that his being the ears and eyes of the international community, as
:06:50. > :06:55.you put it. And that allows the international community to see where
:06:56. > :06:58.reality is distorted. Please answer my question then, because we have
:06:59. > :07:03.these different narratives and this very day one of your senior staff on
:07:04. > :07:07.the ground has said that, such as the scale of the ceasefire violation
:07:08. > :07:10.of the moment that there is a danger of serious escalation. He hasn't
:07:11. > :07:14.assigned responsibility for that. I am asking you to front up with me,
:07:15. > :07:19.what narrative has been correct in the past and who is responsible for
:07:20. > :07:24.the ceasefire violations today? On the narrative side, I would say
:07:25. > :07:34.first of all that we see on both sides, attempts to undermine the
:07:35. > :07:40.situation that would lead, on the ground to progress in the
:07:41. > :07:43.implementation of the Minsk agreement. Say you are saying it is
:07:44. > :07:47.equivalent and both sides are equally at fault for the state that
:07:48. > :07:52.the East Ukraine conflict is in? Well the notion of equality is
:07:53. > :07:56.difficult. If you don't believe in equality, tell me what side you
:07:57. > :08:00.regard as more culpable? One of the problems we had with the monitors on
:08:01. > :08:04.the ground, there are only a certain amount of monitors there. We keep
:08:05. > :08:07.getting obstacles to our freedom of movement, especially on the
:08:08. > :08:11.separatist side. So you are saying when it comes to the freedom of
:08:12. > :08:13.independence of movement of your staff, the pro-Russian separatists
:08:14. > :08:21.are most responsible for stopping you do what you want to do. Yes. And
:08:22. > :08:26.this is a steering our ability to have a good understanding of what is
:08:27. > :08:31.going on -- obscuring. We are in a situation where we see a hybrid
:08:32. > :08:36.conflict. We see important amounts of heavy weapons, of ammunition
:08:37. > :08:41.appearing there. Because we cannot reach... Coming from where? We
:08:42. > :08:45.cannot systematically reach the border. Because the Russians limit
:08:46. > :08:48.your access on their side of the border and the separatists limit
:08:49. > :08:54.your access and control your movement on the other side. Yes. We
:08:55. > :08:58.have a system established on the Russian side, established that aside
:08:59. > :09:01.when only two border crossing points were not controlled by Ukrainians.
:09:02. > :09:07.In the subsequent phase, other border crossing areas were taken
:09:08. > :09:10.over by separatists but we could not expand our operations to cover those
:09:11. > :09:13.so we don't see what is going on there. We see that there is a
:09:14. > :09:21.constant flow of ammunition, for instance. Let's just get down to the
:09:22. > :09:27.situation. You have now described more of the blame certainly for
:09:28. > :09:30.limitations in the scale of your operation to the separatists, so
:09:31. > :09:34.that is something you have put on the table. I want you to put on the
:09:35. > :09:40.else on your table. Your man has just reported these signs of serious
:09:41. > :09:44.escalation. He hasn't, as I understand it, said who he believes
:09:45. > :09:49.is responsible, so I would like you just tell me on HARDtalk, who, right
:09:50. > :09:54.now because of this very dangerous situation right now, UCS primarily
:09:55. > :09:59.responsible? It is difficult to point the finger but one thing that
:10:00. > :10:03.Alexander saw was the two side coming closer together to each
:10:04. > :10:08.other. It is alleged that there is one point on the frontline that is
:10:09. > :10:11.50 metres apart. Exactly. In some instances we see movement on the
:10:12. > :10:15.Ukrainian side where they have pushed forward. In other areas it is
:10:16. > :10:20.on the side of the separatists. So does difficult to point fingers. We
:10:21. > :10:25.need to co-operate with both to make progress and we need the cooperation
:10:26. > :10:27.of all sides to make progress at the political level because at the end
:10:28. > :10:31.of the day, that is where the situation must come from. In your
:10:32. > :10:35.opinion, because you get reports every single day, perhaps you more
:10:36. > :10:42.than any other individual is aware of what is going on in on the
:10:43. > :10:50.ground, but is the ceasefire deal, the Minsk agreement, is it dead? No,
:10:51. > :10:58.but I think first of all, it is the only way forward that we have, so we
:10:59. > :11:07.have in facilitating and engaging with the negation -- negotiations on
:11:08. > :11:11.both sides. It is a difficult job. How close are we to getting back to
:11:12. > :11:18.a hot war in eastern Ukraine? I think there is a risk of escalation.
:11:19. > :11:24.What we have seen in recent weeks is, first of all, redeployment of
:11:25. > :11:29.some heavy equipment from holding areas further away from the line of
:11:30. > :11:35.contact to areas closer to the line of contact. In some cases, we have
:11:36. > :11:41.seen them in use. On both sides or one? We have seen that on both
:11:42. > :11:44.sides. I come back to the question, I think the international community
:11:45. > :11:49.does rely on you to a certain extent, please be as explicit as you
:11:50. > :11:54.can. How close are we right now to a resumption of the hot war? The
:11:55. > :11:58.active conflict in eastern Ukraine? In this moment I don't see the
:11:59. > :12:04.preparation for it, let's put it this way. We are not there, but we
:12:05. > :12:07.see more systematic violations of the ceasefire, we see the usual
:12:08. > :12:14.heavy weapons and we are very worried because this could mark the
:12:15. > :12:17.beginning of a phase where we will see more intense fighting and there
:12:18. > :12:21.are victims also on a daily basis there. So this is a dangerous
:12:22. > :12:26.conflict and we need engagement of the international community and
:12:27. > :12:31.engagement on the format including by Russia because they have a very
:12:32. > :12:34.strong influence on the separatist regime. I want to talk about Russia
:12:35. > :12:40.in a moment but one more point on this. Wouldn't it be better if the
:12:41. > :12:44.international community has Delph had armed peacekeepers on the ground
:12:45. > :12:48.in Ukraine rather than your unarmed observer monitors? I raised this
:12:49. > :12:52.issue myself at some point because I was wondering, can we and should we
:12:53. > :12:57.be more robust? But then at the end of the day, what we see our
:12:58. > :13:09.separatists who are likely not armed, they have heavy tanks --
:13:10. > :13:12.light armed. And backed by Moscow, don't forget. What peace operation
:13:13. > :13:16.can you put in place if you have to go in with a reinforcement Band-Aid?
:13:17. > :13:22.We wouldn't be the right organization to do it, first of
:13:23. > :13:25.all. The only thing is that you have had vehicles torched, you have had
:13:26. > :13:30.your reconnaissance drones blocked so they can't operate. You even had
:13:31. > :13:33.at least 11 of your staff held captive by the separatists. Maybe
:13:34. > :13:37.some of those incidents would not have happened if they had been armed
:13:38. > :13:42.peacekeepers rather than on armed toothless observers. You could also
:13:43. > :13:46.argue the other way around. It could also have been a more serious
:13:47. > :13:50.incident with our peacekeepers and the confrontation with the
:13:51. > :13:56.separatists, between the separatists on the peacekeepers. Some of the
:13:57. > :14:04.things you are saying are right, but for instance, our area vehicles --
:14:05. > :14:07.Ariel, we have lots of pictures and we show them to our country 's,
:14:08. > :14:13.obviously because we are transparent with them and we show them what we
:14:14. > :14:17.see. So in many cases, guess we are jammed, but in many other cases we
:14:18. > :14:20.managed to see military movements and pullback.
:14:21. > :14:27.Maybe you won't say it but I will, jamming of vehicles is most likely
:14:28. > :14:32.coming from Russian technology, which brings us back to Russia.
:14:33. > :14:36.Russia is one of the most important members of your organisation. As I
:14:37. > :14:41.said at the beginning, the roots of your organisation is in trying to
:14:42. > :14:45.establish the East-West dialogue in the Cold War. You are increase is in
:14:46. > :14:49.a way which would be undermined if Russia wasn't on board and buying
:14:50. > :14:54.into the concept of the OSCE, so you can't afford for Putin to walk away
:14:55. > :14:59.from the OSCE, and I would put it to you that it means you have
:15:00. > :15:08.soft-pedalled on what Mr Putin is doing in his own country. I wouldn't
:15:09. > :15:13.say that either. First of all, on the conflict and where it started
:15:14. > :15:21.from, we had one picture of one of those pieces of military equipment
:15:22. > :15:26.that were jamming the UAVs, and it is a system that is identical to a
:15:27. > :15:28.system used by the Russian Federation. There is a strong
:15:29. > :15:35.suspicion that that is where it is coming from. I can confirm that. The
:15:36. > :15:40.point is you are committed, no, let's leave out Ukraine, let's look
:15:41. > :15:45.a picture. You are committed to boosting the forces of freedom,
:15:46. > :15:50.human rights, democracy -- big picture. Look at the Russian record
:15:51. > :15:53.on political repression, civil society intolerance, media
:15:54. > :16:01.suppression, electoral malpractice and all of these key indicators of
:16:02. > :16:08.the health of a society. Russia, one of your most important members, is
:16:09. > :16:11.failing. Yes. You see, we don't pass judgement on single country. I would
:16:12. > :16:17.have a list of countries to give you. Believe me, I have a list. The
:16:18. > :16:22.point is, Russia is important because of the history of your
:16:23. > :16:25.organisation. Of course it is. And the OSCE offers the platform for the
:16:26. > :16:33.countries to raise concerns in this context. We have meetings where
:16:34. > :16:40.these things are raised. These issues are raised. This is done
:16:41. > :16:43.consistently in the organisation. It comes back to whether there is a
:16:44. > :16:49.point to your organisation. Let's go through some specific. Crimea. Last
:16:50. > :16:52.year you issued a report on claiming out which expressed concern about
:16:53. > :17:00.human rights media abuses in Crimea but you are not... Are you allowed,
:17:01. > :17:10.your monitors and staff at a allowed into Crimea? -- staff allowed. No.
:17:11. > :17:16.Russians made a statement at the time arguing that Crimea was not...
:17:17. > :17:21.(CROSSTALK). Russia is eight key member of the organisation nominally
:17:22. > :17:25.committed to the pursuit of freedom, human rights and democracy and won't
:17:26. > :17:30.even let you into Crimea -- a key. If I want to go to Crimea, Russians
:17:31. > :17:34.might let me in with conditions, so I am assessing clearly what they
:17:35. > :17:44.will be, and I am cautious on this. Russians want... (CROSSTALK). It
:17:45. > :17:48.seems Crimea is off-limits. When it comes to practicality, what your
:17:49. > :17:52.message has, where you can go, one gets very depressed. Maybe the fact
:17:53. > :17:57.that you can't frankly take on Mr Putin's Russia and achieve anything
:17:58. > :18:00.in terms of real intervention or even monitoring in Russia itself is
:18:01. > :18:06.a signal to other countries. For example, Belarus has thrown new out
:18:07. > :18:10.after you didn't like their last election. Azerbaijan has thrown new
:18:11. > :18:13.out after you didn't like the last election. I can carry on going
:18:14. > :18:17.through a list of countries, which are members of your organisation,
:18:18. > :18:21.which absolutely refuse to have you in their country any more and refuse
:18:22. > :18:27.to listen to the messages you send them. These are not difficulties of
:18:28. > :18:30.the organisation. These are difficulties that reflect the
:18:31. > 2:50:37problems in the relationship between countries. The countries themselves
2:50:38 > 2:50:37have a problem addressing these issues. They have a problem
2:50:38 > 2:50:37addressing them also in the organisation. You have a credibility
2:50:38 > 2:50:37problem if you allow these countries... We come back to the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37beginning of the organisation, to maintain membership in the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37organisation. Chuck them out. Then we become what? The European Union.
2:50:38 > 2:50:37Don't tell me you are committed to the pursuit of freedom and democracy
2:50:38 > 2:50:37across the European space. We continue engaging on these issues
2:50:38 > 2:50:37both with Azerbaijan and with Belarus. We are engaging with
2:50:38 > 2:50:37projects to restart a practical cooperation. On the question of
2:50:38 > 2:50:37credibility, be honest, was it a mistake in 2010 to give the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37chairmanship of the organisation to Kazakhstan. And to have the summit
2:50:38 > 2:50:37of the OSCE posted in Kazakhstan, whether President has just won
2:50:38 > 2:50:37another election with 98% of the vote, and your own people saying
2:50:38 > 2:50:37that it was a fundamentally unfair election without... With a total
2:50:38 > 2:50:37lack of credible choice. Why did you allow Kazakhstan to host the OSCE
2:50:38 > 2:50:37Summit? Why not? Why do we want to pass judgement on countries? Why
2:50:38 > 2:50:37don't we give them responsibilities and then push them to live up to
2:50:38 > 2:50:37their responsibilities? Working with Kazakhstan - I was not there at the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37time, I joined after this - but working with Kazakhstan on an agenda
2:50:38 > 2:50:37like the agenda of the OSCE is important. It is a way of moving
2:50:38 > 2:50:37them closer to give them responsibility. You think it has
2:50:38 > 2:50:37made a difference? You do that in 2010, it is 2016, and he has won and
2:50:38 > 2:50:3798% majority. You are heading in the right direction? That is a different
2:50:38 > 2:50:37issue. On the elections, we keep working on them. We work with the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37regulatory committee. It is a question of government structure in
2:50:38 > 2:50:37some of these countries. If you look at the post Soviet countries, many
2:50:38 > 2:50:37of them have similar government structures. We will need to go for
2:50:38 > 2:50:37the long haul. It will take time to change things in those places but we
2:50:38 > 2:50:37need space to engage. It is a long hall. I am wondering about another
2:50:38 > 2:50:37important member state of the organisation, Turkey. How tough do
2:50:38 > 2:50:37you think the rhetoric should be on that right now, when we see
2:50:38 > 2:50:37newspaper offices invaded by state officials, allegations of military
2:50:38 > 2:50:37abuses, security situation that is deteriorating -- haul. How tough do
2:50:38 > 2:50:37you believe the message should be to Turkey? Winnie to work with Turkey
2:50:38 > 2:50:37on these issues. -- we need to work. There are statements from the OSCE
2:50:38 > 2:50:37already expressing concern. The journalists who have lost their
2:50:38 > 2:50:37offices, in OSCE, we spoke about one the other day, they talk about the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37President, Mr Erdogan, as a despot, the death of democracy. You are
2:50:38 > 2:50:37pushing for democracy across the European space. What you think?
2:50:38 > 2:50:37There is a problem there. We need to speak up. Do you see Mr Erdogan as
2:50:38 > 2:50:37showing grave tendencies toward authoritarianism? IC symptoms of
2:50:38 > 2:50:37that, certainly, and... How can I say, freedom of media is an
2:50:38 > 2:50:37important indicator -- I see. We need to work with Turkey on those
2:50:38 > 2:50:37issues and our people dealing on the freedom of the media are engaging
2:50:38 > 2:50:37with Turkey, the people working on elections are engaging with Turkey,
2:50:38 > 2:50:37their mission is also monitoring the elections. As an Italian diplomat,
2:50:38 > 2:50:37as you were, you watch or the EU does closely. Does it rob you that
2:50:38 > 2:50:37in the mist of this worrying trend in Turkey, Europeans are offering
2:50:38 > 2:50:37Turkey serious carrots including faster accession talks and visa free
2:50:38 > 2:50:37travel to get help and cooperation on migration and security issues? --
2:50:38 > 2:50:37worry. Does that trade-off or EU? There is a bit of a lack of
2:50:38 > 2:50:37foresight in all this. The Europeans haven't, how can I say, reacted in
2:50:38 > 2:50:37time, they haven't seen the signals. We've been discussing this issue of
2:50:38 > 2:50:37Syrian refugees in Turkey three years ago. Europeans didn't take any
2:50:38 > 2:50:37notice. They didn't seem to be concerned. And now the no-go sheet
2:50:38 > 2:50:37and I with Turkey under pressure with the humanitarian emergency and
2:50:38 > 2:50:37the risk is we see we might not have a very good deal -- the negotiation.
2:50:38 > 2:50:37Under that kind of pressure, negotiation is one where you might
2:50:38 > 2:50:37have to be including more concessions than you thought of
2:50:38 > 2:50:37initially. We have to want it but you have done this job for five
2:50:38 > 2:50:37years, pretty much. It strikes me that it is getting more difficult as
2:50:38 > 2:50:37the problems you face not just in Europe but the hinterland of Europe
2:50:38 > 2:50:37are more profound. It is difficult, because the security challenges we
2:50:38 > 2:50:37are facing are much more complex than they used to be. We have
2:50:38 > 2:50:37competition among key powers, regional politics are not getting
2:50:38 > 2:50:37easier, and we have global challenges from terrorism to now the
2:50:38 > 2:50:37large migration issue. I also see signs of interest to create
2:50:38 > 2:50:37coalitions to work against some of the global challenges, for example,
2:50:38 > 2:50:37terrorism, so we also find areas where countries in fact do work
2:50:38 > 2:50:37together. OK, we have to end it there, but Lamberto Zannier, thank
2:50:38 > 2:50:38you very much for being on HARDtalk. Thank you.