Cassis Prioritizes Dialogue in OSCE Chairmanship Despite Deep Divisions
In Bern, the Federal Councillor recalls the 1975 Helsinki Process. Switzerland aims to preserve the OSCE as a platform for dialogue and cooperation even amid geopolitical confrontation.
OSCE Aims to Remain Operational Despite Divisions
Switzerland holds the OSCE Chairmanship in 2026. Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis leads an organization whose participating states are deeply divided on central issues of European security.
On September 3, Cassis spoke at a conference in Bern about the OSCE's origins and the Helsinki Process's significance today. The event, "From Geneva to Helsinki: Origins and Main Purpose of the OSCE," was organized jointly with the Dodis research center.
Cassis used the historical review not to glorify the past. On the contrary, the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 emerged not among friends but among adversaries. This, he believes, offers a lesson for the current situation.
"Cooperation Does Not Require Agreement"
Cassis articulated his central message in English: "Cooperation does not require agreement. It requires the willingness to keep talking despite disagreement."
For him, cooperation does not mean overcoming political differences or downplaying conflicts. The OSCE should rather remain a place where differences can be managed, risks reduced, and transparency fostered. If political opportunities arise, the organization can also help prepare agreements.
Cassis sees the OSCE's current importance precisely in this. If confrontation has returned to Europe, so has the organization's original purpose.
Budget Shows Cooperation Remains Possible
Cassis can base his argument on a concrete example from this year. After several years of political deadlock, all 57 participating states agreed on the OSCE budget for 2026.
The agreement ended a five-year stalemate. The budget was also significantly cut. Compared to the last approved budget of 2021, the financial framework decreased by about ten percent to approximately 123 million Euros.
The cuts have consequences for the organization. More than 100 of the approximately 2000 employees must leave the OSCE. At the same time, the organization's core tasks are to be maintained.
For Cassis, the budget agreement is therefore not proof that political conflicts are resolved. Rather, it shows that a joint decision remains possible even under difficult conditions.
The OSCE is Not an Organization Without Conflicts
The OSCE thus differs from a classic alliance. Its 57 participating states range from North America across Europe to Central Asia. These include NATO and EU states, as well as Russia and other states in the OSCE area.
Decisions are generally made by consensus. This can render the organization unable to act if individual states block key resolutions. At the same time, this procedure compels participating states to negotiate with each other, even under challenging circumstances.
Cassis views this contradiction not solely as a weakness. The necessity of consensus can also be a strength, as it forces dialogue between states that would otherwise barely communicate.
Helsinki Also Emerged Among Adversaries
The look back to 1975 is therefore central to Cassis's argument. The Helsinki Final Act was negotiated during the Cold War. The states involved were sometimes irreconcilably opposed politically and militarily.
Nevertheless, they succeeded in establishing common principles for European security. These included, among others, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Cassis does not intend to draw a direct parallel to the current situation. His conclusion is more fundamental: even in a phase of great confrontation, it can be useful to keep institutional channels of communication open.
Switzerland Seeks to Use This Role as Chair
This approach is particularly relevant for Switzerland. It chairs the OSCE in 2026 for the third time, after 1996 and 2014. Official priorities include the Helsinki Principles, including multilateral diplomacy, technological developments, democracy and human rights, and the organization's operational capacity.
As the Chair, Switzerland assumes the political leadership of the organization, promotes security dialogue, and supports efforts for conflict resolution and management.
Cassis emphasizes the importance of Swiss experience in dialogue and mediation. Switzerland can use its role as Chair to keep communication channels open and bring together different positions.
However, this does not mean that Switzerland can automatically mediate between all parties to a conflict. The Swiss Chairmanship gives Cassis political influence over the agenda and discussions, but not the ability to unilaterally enforce decisions by the 57 participating states.
Neutrality Alone Is Not Enough
Swiss neutrality can be an advantage for the Chairmanship, but it is not a substitute for political majorities. Cassis can facilitate discussions and place topics on the agenda. Whether concrete agreements emerge ultimately depends on the participating states themselves.
Precisely for this reason, the OSCE's operational capacity is one of Switzerland's five priorities. Switzerland aims to preserve the organization's fundamental instruments – including its missions and election observation – and secure their financing.
The Swiss Chairmanship thus balances two tasks: it must hold the organization together politically while acknowledging that its members remain far apart on key issues.
Dialogue Does Not Mean Consent
Cassis's message is therefore not only directed at the OSCE as an institution. It also describes a limit of diplomatic cooperation: dialogue does not mean that states must abandon their positions.
The OSCE cannot resolve conflicts alone. However, it can provide a venue where states can speak with each other despite their differences. Cassis considers this function crucial.
His formula is therefore not that participating states must agree again. What is crucial, he states, is that the possibility for dialogue remains open when a political window for negotiations eventually opens.
The Decisive Question Is Whether Dialogue Continues
Switzerland's OSCE Chairmanship thus faces a difficult balancing act. The organization must remain operational, despite its participating states pursuing conflicting interests on many issues. Simultaneously, Switzerland aims to introduce its own priorities without confusing its role as chair with that of a conflict actor.
The 2026 budget agreement shows that even after years of deadlock, joint decisions are possible. However, it does not resolve the political conflicts within the OSCE.
Precisely therein lies the significance of Cassis's message from Bern: The OSCE does not first need to re-establish agreement to be useful. Above all, it must ensure that dialogue does not break off.
Whether this approach will prove effective in the coming months will depend on whether Switzerland can truly keep communication channels open and simultaneously achieve concrete progress in the organization's operational capacity.
Sources
- Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), OSCE Conference in Bern and speech by Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis, September 3, 2026.
- FDFA, Swiss OSCE Chairmanship 2026.
- OSCE, information on the Swiss Chairmanship 2026 and Switzerland's priorities.
- OSCE, Decision on the 2026 Budget.
