The OSCE’s Standstill and the Valletta Consensus: A Fresh or False Start?

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the world’s largest regional security organization, has faced an existential crisis. Deep geopolitical polarization has paralyzed its decision-making, with Moscow and its allies systematically using their veto power to stall core activities.

Yet, a rare moment of agreement emerged at the last Ministerial Council in Valletta in December 2024, where participating states reached consensus on appointing new OSCE executive leadership. As Malta’s OSCE Chair-in-Office Ian Borg emphasized, “Consensus on these appointments is not merely administrative routine”. Indeed, this agreement, overdue since last September, marks a departure from the deadlock of the past few years, raising a crucial question: Does the Valletta agreement signal a newfound consensus among participating states that will be sustained in future decisions, or is it merely a one-time occurrence? 

The OSCE and the war in Ukraine: exacerbating deep structural weaknesses

Tensions within the OSCE are not new, as the organization has long mirrored Russian-Western relations, often serving as an arena for confrontation. However, while past crises never fully paralyzed the organization, the war in Ukraine has posed an existential threat to the OSCE’s functionality. 

Russia’s invasion not only constituted a blatant violation of OSCE’s core principles but also exposed and exacerbated its structural vulnerabilities. First, OSCE lacks binding mechanisms to enforce compliance, meaning that it has no instruments to punish violations of its principles. Second, since every decision at the OSCE is made by consensus, tensions among members can significantly disrupt operations if a compromise cannot be reached. Originally designed to foster cooperation, the consensus rule has instead become a tool for obstruction, with Russia and Belarus using their veto to block OSCE activities. 

This obstructionism has led to the termination of key initiatives, such as the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine in March 2022. Other missions, like in Moldova, are now extended on a six-month basis instead of the usual one-year term, complicating long-term planning. Additionally, several OSCE events, such as the Forum for Security Cooperation and the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, could not take place or took place without an agreed-upon agenda. Most critically, the organization has been unable to adopt a unified budget for several years, forcing it to operate on short-term funding, severely constraining its activities. 

A paralyzed decision-making process and informal workarounds

Before 2022, formal decision-making at the OSCE Ministerial Councils could still deliver important outcomes on security matters.  As Figure 1 illustrates, prior to the war in Ukraine, participating states were able to agree on several substantive decisions, such as on combating corruption and terrorism, and adopt joint declarations. This demonstrates that the consensus-based decision-making was functional at the time. For instance, the 2014 annexation of Crimea did not prevent states from reaching substantive agreements, including deploying a mission in Ukraine. 

However, since the full-scale war in 2022, formal decision-making has come to a standstill (See Figure 1). The 2022 Ministerial Council ended without a single adopted decision or declaration, and subsequent Councils have only been able to reach procedural agreements, such as leadership extensions or appointments, while substantive security decisions remain blocked.  

As a result, the OSCE is now operating in what one representative described as “life support mode”. While Russia is not the only state using its veto power to exert pressure, the impact of the war on decision-making has been particularly profound.  

Nevertheless, despite this deadlock, participating states have found ways to circumvent the consensus rule. Voluntary funding and extrabudgetary initiatives have sustained OSCE’s critical operations, such as the Extra-Budgetary Support Programme for Ukraine, launched in November 2022. Moreover, instruments not requiring unanimity, like the Moscow Mechanism and the Vienna Mechanism, have been employed to investigate Russia’s human rights violations related to the war in Ukraine. Alternative forums, such as the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference, have replaced blocked meetings, ensuring continued dialogue on key human rights issues. 

Figure 1: Formal decisions adopted at OSCE Ministerial Councils (2004-2024)

Source: Author’s elaboration based on OSCE website data

The Valletta Consensus: appointments of OSCE top four positions

In December 2024, participating states reached a long-overdue agreement on appointing OSCE new executive leadership, filling four key positions: Feridun H. Sinirlioğlu from Turkey as OSCE Secretary General, Maria Telalian from Greece as OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Christophe Kamp from the Netherlands as OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, and Jan Braathu from Norway as OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.

This agreement was not easily achieved. The deadlock over OSCE leadership began in December 2023, when states failed to agree on extending the previous officers’ mandates. Specifically, Moscow opposed the traditional three-year extension and even rejected a one-year compromise. Consequently, states agreed only on a temporary nine-month extension, an exceptional measure that reflects the severe paralysis within OSCE decision-making process. 

Throughout 2024, negotiations remained unfruitful and, when the mandates officially expired on September 3, 2024, OSCE top executive positions remained vacant, creating a severe institutional crisis. During this period, deputies assumed temporary roles but, without permanent leadership, the organization could only carry out routine functions, leaving many core activities on hold. 

Although some states, like Albania, criticized the negotiation process for prioritizing “political considerations over merit-based principles”, the Valletta consensus was widely welcomed. Indeed, the new appointments provide stability and predictability for the OSCE over the next three years. Moreover, this consensus signaled a shared interest in preserving the organization. 

Can the Valletta consensus be sustained in the future? 

It remains uncertain whether the Valletta consensus marks a true turning point for the OSCE and a willingness to resume formal decision-making, or if it was merely a temporary compromise. While the OSCE has long served as a forum for East-West dialogue, the paralysis of its decision-making process has severely weakened its ability to address security matters. 

Sustaining the Valletta consensus in future decisions will be crucial to overcome the OSCE’s current standstill. The 2025 OSCE Chairmanship, Finland, will have to pay special attention to this. Intense negotiations and shared willingness to compromise, that have characterized the OSCE in the past, may help maintain this momentum. 

However, 2025 may present significant challenges in sustaining consensus. Finland’s Chairmanship was agreed upon in 2021, at the same time when Moscow opposed Estonia’s candidacy for 2024 due to its NATO membership. Ironically, Finland now assumes the role of OSCE Chair as a NATO member. With Russia increasingly portraying the OSCE as an “appendage of NATO and the EU”, a NATO member at the lead of the organization may complicate efforts to achieve consensus-based decision-making on substantive issues. The Valletta consensus risks, therefore, being a false start. 

Picture. Source: OSCE, 31 October 2024.

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the blog posts belong solely to the authors, and are not necessarily representative of the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI) nor the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. The content provided through our blogs is for informational purposes only. Readers are encouraged to consider the context and research behind the viewpoints shared within each blog post.