Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the invitation to participate in this Roundtable. It is a pleasure for me to represent the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe at this Second Ministerial of the Community of Democracies, and I express also my thanks to the Republic of Korea for their efforts in organizing this important Conference. For those who do not know me, I am the Acting Director of the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which is located in Warsaw, not far from the site of the First CD Ministerial (which I also attended, although in another capacity). I am here in my own behalf and on behalf of Secretary General Jan Kubis, who's come down with a very undiplomatic case of the 'flu. The OSCE includes 55 participating States in North America, Europe, the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia, but I note with regret that, quite rightly, not all OSCE participating States were invited to attend this meeting. The fact is that not all states in the OSCE region are qualified to participate in the Community of Democracies. It was with great interest that I read the discussion papers prepared by the Co-chairs of these four roundtables. In fact, I was torn as to which one I would attend, as all four of the topics are of relevance and interest to me and the OSCE. The OSCE is, by definition, a "regional organization for cooperation to promote democracy" (that's Roundtable II). From the very outset of the CSCE/OSCE, democratization and human rights have been an important and integral part of the work to enhance security in Europe. The intention of the participating States was to create a comprehensive framework for peace and stability in Europe, based on a co-operative concept of security, which includes the politico-military dimension, the economic dimension and the human dimension. It is important to stress that there is no hierarchy among these OSCE principles. It is therefore not possible for any government in a participating State to claim that it must establish political or economic security before addressing human rights and strengthening democracy. As will be evident from its name, my Office spends much of its time on "Consolidating Democratic Institutions" and working to promote and defend human rights, which is what this Roundtable is all about. We do this by observing and assessing elections thoughout the OSCE region, which comprises 55 participating States in North America, Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia, making recommendations on improvements in electoral code and procedures, and offering assistance where needed in this field. We also monitor the human rights situation in participating States and take action where we see problems, discreetly or in more public manner depending on the circumstances, and we host a number of "human dimension" meetings each year, providing a forum for discussion of specific issues and the venue for an annual review by the participating States (and the NGO community) of how their peers are implementing their commitments in this field. We are also active through my Office in dozens of projects each year, most of them funded by generous voluntary contributions from governments in the region, helping other governments. (That is the topic of Roundtable IV, of course: Coordinating Democracy Assistance.) These projects bring -- to States which want them -- knowledge and expertise in the rule of law, gender equality, strengthening civil society, freedom of assembly, religion, and movement, as well as the fights against trafficking in human beings and against terrorism. On the latter issue, I would briefly note that we remain convinced that terrorism is best uprooted by removing the soil in which it grows, including injustice, despair, lack of opportunity for expression of ideas or beliefs, etc., and our work aims to ensure that governments keep their human dimension commitments firmly in mind as they work to eliminate terrorism. The OSCE also has a Representative on Freedom of the Media (that's Roundtable III, for those keeping score: "Media and Democracy"), established in December 1997 and tasked to observe relevant media developments in all OSCE participating States with a view of providing early warning on violations of freedom of expression. The Representative's second main task is to assist participating States by advocating and promoting full compliance with OSCE principles and commitments regarding freedom of expression and free media. His Office also carries out a number of projects designed to sensitize citizens and governments to the importance of freedom of the media in protecting human rigthts and fostering democracy in their countries. Although not directly involved in the Human Dimension, other elements of the OSCE work in areas that are relevant to this meeting. The High Commissioner on National Minorities, based in the Hague, seeks early resolution of ethnic tensions that might endanger peace, stability or friendly relations between OSCE participating States. The Coordinator of Economic and Environmental Affairs works on those issues, which affect states and groups of states at a crucial phase of their economic development. And finally, substantive and important work is also being carried out through the OSCE's field activities. Currently, OSCE has field activities of different sizes in 19 countries, with some 4,000 staff. Issues of human rights and democratisation are part of most of their activities. In the area of democratisation, OSCE documents are more advanced than "traditional" human rights instruments, as the OSCE human dimension commitments go further in linking human rights with the institutional and political system and performance of a state. In essence, OSCE participating States have agreed through their human dimension commitments that pluralistic democracy based on the rule of law is the only system of government suitable to guarantee human rights effectively. For obvious reasons, States that have become democracies more recently, and face particular challenges in multiple transitions, have been at the focus of the OSCE's attention. The OSCE documents and activities provide a firm anchorage for countries without strong democratic traditions and affected by weak institutions. The OSCE represents the first point of reference for countries in the OSCE area which seek development through democracy and partnership through common values. Although the OSCE participating States only engage in politically, rather than legally binding agreements, it is precisely that flexibility which gives the OSCE its unique possibility to involve weak democracies in an inclusive manner based on equality and partnership. Mr. Chairman, as you know the development of lasting and sustainable institutions on a national level is imperative for the creation of strong and sustainable democracies. It has therefore been in the focus of much OSCE democratization work in the field. Most notably in Kosovo, the OSCE Mission, which forms the pillar of the international administration mandated with "Institution Building", has been instrumental in developing institutions such as the Central Election Commission, the Temporary Media Commissioner, and the Office of the Ombudsperson. Furthermore, the OSCE has established and is also operating the multi-ethnic Kosovo Police Service School, which by the end of December will have trained 5,300 locally recruited police officers. More recently, the OSCE Mission in Kosovo has engaged in the establishment of functioning democratic institutions at local and central level, by training delegates to Kosovo's Municipal Assemblies and the Kosovo Assembly. In Kosovo, the OSCE's efforts have been crucial in the development of democracy from scratch. Strong and viable democratic political parties are another important component for democracy. Your discussion paper mentions the development of political parties as one of the strategic priorities in the work for democracy. I would note the important work that is being carried out in this area by OSCE field activities. Several programs have been implemented with the purpose to develop and strengthen viable, skilled and independent democratic parties. Again looking at Kosovo, the OSCE Mission there has been running training courses with the aim to build the capacity of political parties. This training has focused on such topics as the role of the opposition, relations between media and parties, and as special training for parties representing smaller communities. The Kosovo Mission is also hosting Political Party Consultative Forums (PPCF), a mechanism through which political parties can engage in dialogue with each other and the international community. Needless to say, the performance of free and fair elections is essential to the concept of democracy. That is why the OSCE has devoted much attention and resources to elections in the last decade. The ODIHR regularly deploys election observation missions to OSCE participating States in order to assess the implementation of OSCE commitments relating to elections. During 2002, my Office will have monitored or assessed some 20 elections, in the Republics of Montenegro and Serbia in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia, the Slovak Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, France, Turkey and most recently the United States of America. In its work related to elections, the ODIHR can draw on the support and experience of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly as well as of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In several post-conflict situations, namely in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, the OSCE itself conducted a series of elections on all levels until all local structures could take over this responsibility. In Bosnia, this handover has already successfully taken place. As noted in the Discussion Paper, a mere political commitment to democracy or the limitation to a purely "electoral" democracy would only go that far. Even though the establishment of a democratic system naturally depends on free and fair elections, this is far from the only criterion, and elections alone do not guarantee the survival of a democratic order. Democracy, even in countries with a long democratic tradition, needs to be actively pursued and promoted by all major elements of society, to be constantly renewed and further refined, by developing new responses and appropriate mechanisms for changing societies. Being a democracy is not like having passed a one-time test, but rather it's the development of a democratic culture which nurtures its own permanent development and improvement. In short, stable democracy means constant change and responsiveness, not stagnation or complacency. That is why OSCE commitments take democratisation beyond the mere holding of elections. They also include requirements that activities of the government, the administration and the judiciary should be exercised in accordance with the system established by law. In addition, the notion of rule of law as it is enshrined in the OSCE documents does not describe merely a formal legality which assures regularity and consistency in the achievement and enforcement of democratic order. It goes beyond that, in aiming at justice based on the recognition and full acceptance of the supreme value of the human personality guaranteed by institutions providing a framework for its fullest expression. It thus bridges individual human rights and the institutional framework and structure of a participating State. The roundtable discussion paper raises the issue of managing ethnic, regional and religious differences. I mentioned earlier the High Commissioner for National Minorities, whose role in reducing ethnic tensions is generally confidential but no less important or effective. Commitments on freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief were enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act back in 1975. This makes them among the most long-standing OSCE human dimension commitments. Principle VII of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act lays down the responsibility of participating States to promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms, all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development. Further, it is stated that the participating States will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practice, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience. An Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief was established under the auspices of the ODIHR at the beginning of 2000, primarily as an advisory and consultative body, highlighting issues or trends that deserve attention and suggesting constructive approaches that might be undertaken by the ODIHR to advance religious freedom. The ODIHR makes the Panel's expertise available to participating States and to OSCE field missions. The Panel has undertaken a number of projects in co-operation with governments and other groups across the OSCE region. The latest contribution to the promotion of tolerance in the OSCE area took place last month, when we organized a conference with the Azerbaijan government in Baku on "The Role of Religion and Belief in a Democratic Society: Searching for Ways to Combat Terrorism and Extremism". This conference provided an important opportunity for governments, spiritual leaders and civil society representatives from OSCE participating States and the region of the Great Silk Route to discuss ways in which they should co-operate to ensure that religion and belief play their proper, positive role in the fight against terrorism. Virtually all participants urged us to repeat the experience in the coming year. Although we can look back at our achievements with some pride, it would be a mistake to overlook the new challenges to the democratic agenda, both in the form of new geographic horizons and the rising threat emanating from terrorism around the globe. The signatories of the Helsinki Final Act, the founding document of OSCE, had the foresight to state that security in Europe is to be considered in the broader context of global security. Accordingly the process of improving security should not be confined to Europe but should extend to other parts of the world, and in particular to the Mediterranean area. We have accepted a number of countries as Mediterranean Partner States, for ensuring peace, democracy and prosperity is a common objective. The recognition of the interdependence of security between Europe and the Mediterranean region forms the backbone of our dialogue and co-operation. The OSCE has similarly welcomed Japan, Thailand, and the Republic of Korea as Partner States, recognizing that they share many of our values and support our commitments, particularly in the Human Dimension. A recent decision from the OSCE Permanent Council welcomes the six Mediterranean Partners for Co-operation, Japan, Thailand and the Republic to send observers to electoral missions of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) as well as seconding of mission members to OSCE field missions. Recently Korea seconded one staff member to the OSCE mission in FRY and also sent four election observers to the municipal elections in Kosovo. We have even begun talks with the Secretariat of the African Union in response to their expressed desire to learn from our experience in election observation. (As one who began his career in international relations by service in West Africa, I particularly welcome that initiative and will do everything I can to support its successful development.) Mr Chairman, both Secretary General Kubis and I participated in the first conference on the Community of Democracies two years ago, and we were also present at the follow up meeting of regional organizations at OAS Headquarters in Washington last year. I would like to conclude by emphasizing the importance of regular meetings and opportunities for sharing experiences in the future, both among governments and, as recommended by several participants in this Roundtable today, among your intergovernmental organizations such as the OSCE, the OAS, et al.. The opportunities to exchange views at this level is of vital importance for keeping the momentum of democratisation alive. There was also a recommendation made to include the Bretton Woods Institutions in these meetings; I would take that further and suggest you consider seriously including the Community of Democracies in the Bretton Woods Institutions. That might help reduce the concern of some activists who fear that globalization and the world economic structure is becoming undemocratic. I would also endorse those who have suggested formation of a "democracy caucus" in the UN system, as a way to get past the problems caused by bloc voting on obsolete ideological grounds or counterproductive geographical solidarity. As I have tried to show, in its work over the past decade, the OSCE and its various institutions and field operations have contributed to shaping and developing the very concepts and mechanisms of this last decade's wave of democratization. The OSCE, through its permanent missions as well as through an intensive dialogue with authorities through a variety of channels, is confronted with these challenges on a daily basis and can therefore make a unique contribution to the elaboration of remedies and strategies for further strengthening democratic values and institutions. I look forward to working with you, and for you, in this important task.