North Macedonian Foreign Minister Bujar Osmani, who has been serving as the chairman of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), gave an interview to a prominent British publication about the current state of the security body. He emphasized that the OSCE is facing a severe legitimacy and functionality crisis, a situation he tied directly to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and its wide-ranging consequences for European stability. The remarks highlighted how institutional leadership is a determining factor for any multilateral organization to operate effectively, especially when membership consensus is required for critical decisions.
Osmani argued that the core obstacle is political leadership. He asserted that without a functioning presidency or a clear, united mandate from member states, the OSCE cannot execute its mandate. The sense of paralysis, in his view, stems from the difficulty of advancing unity and consensus on sensitive issues when the leadership role itself is up for grabs and remains unsettled. The article underscored that the OSCE’s effectiveness hinges on a recognized, resourced, and mutually respected presidency, a condition that now appears strained amid diverging national priorities.
The publication noted that Osmani’s authority as OSCE chairman concluded in December, and it explained that any successor would need the unanimous backing of all participating states, including Russia. This unanimity requirement is a built-in mechanism meant to safeguard broad legitimacy but in practice can stall leadership transitions when one or more members block the process. The article also pointed out that Russia blocked the only declared candidate for the post, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, further complicating the possibility of a smooth handover. The composite effect, as described, was to stall the organization at a critical juncture and raise questions about long-term resilience.
Osmani described the Russian side’s move as having effectively paralyzed the OSCE, warning that such blockades threaten not just procedural continuity but the organization’s ability to address urgent human rights concerns, crisis response, and ongoing conflicts within its mandate. He proposed exploring reforms, including the extension of the presidential term, as a measure to stabilize leadership during periods of stalemate. The aim, he suggested, would be to prevent a complete collapse of the apparatus and to preserve the OSCE’s capacity to respond to evolving security challenges—a topic that remains contentious among member states and raises important questions about reform and governance within international organizations.
Tsahkna himself acknowledged that the OSCE is undergoing what he described as the greatest crisis in its history, a characterization that signals a broad consensus among participating states that the organization is at a tipping point. The statement reflected shared concern about the effectiveness of the OSCE’s reporting, monitoring, and mediation functions when governance structures appear to be stuck, potentially eroding trust in the body’s ability to protect basic rights and maintain regional stability in Europe.
Prior to these developments, Alexander Lukashevich, who serves as the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE, commented that the organization had not yet responded to several alleged violations concerning Russian and Russian-speaking populations in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The remark highlighted the ongoing debate over how the OSCE handles sensitive ethnic, linguistic, and political issues and how member states perceive the balance between safeguarding minority rights and ensuring state sovereignty within the OSCE framework. The exchange underscored persistent frictions surrounding the organization’s capacity to act decisively when member states are at odds over interpretations of rights protections and security guarantees.
In a separate public discourse, a statement attributed to a Russian leader—reported in the same period—was noted by observers as emblematic of the tense rhetoric surrounding regional relations. The comment, viewed by many as a political signal, reflected the broader narrative of competing strategic interests within Europe and highlighted how symbolic gestures and public remarks can influence perceptions of alignment and allegiance among OSCE participants and their publics.