 Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, sorry for the delay and I think anyone who tried to get here today will understand that the Secretary General too has been caught up in the town traffic. First off, maybe you would like to ensure that your mobile phones are switched off or switched to silent. We are living these days in interesting times to use a t-shirt as far as security in Europe is concerned. We hear that NATO, one of the pillars of European security for what will be next month, 70 years is obsolete and we hear other people saying that NATO is brain dead. That makes the question of security in Europe very topical and indeed very crucial. So who more interesting to talk about it than the Secretary General of the organization for precisely security and cooperation in Europe. You are very welcome Mr. Griminger in this capacity. We look forward to great interest to hearing what you have to say and as you perhaps heard me asking, the formal presentation by Mr. Griminger will be on the record. The question and answer session afterwards because as Mr. Griminger says this will make it more interesting will be on the record. So Mr. Griminger will speak for about 20 minutes, his schedule is very tight. We have to finish at 2 o'clock so let's begin to have the floor. Thank you so much. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to be here in Dublin. I should actually say back to Dublin. During the Irish OEC chairmanship in 2012 I was in Dublin on several occasions. So happy to be back. Let me start by thanking the IEA and its president for inviting me to this event. Ladies and gentlemen Ireland was a founding member of the OEC and it remains one of the organization's leading champions up to the day. And support for our cooperative and comprehensive approach to security is particularly welcome now. Then the fundamentals of international security and diplomacy face unprecedented challenges. Our second channel of the world's largest regional security organization I have to admit it's not easy to be an advocate of cooperative security these days. In the OEC we have long argued that security is indivisible. Security of one country should not be enhanced at the expense of others. And the past two decades have shown us what happens when this principle is not respected. Today some of the world's most powerful leaders openly display their distrust of international institutions, oppose international governance and increasingly turn to unilateral and often confrontational approaches in foreign relations. Such behavior may offer short-term rewards for those with the greatest bargaining power. But even for them it's often detrimental and costly in the long term. And it erodes trust and confidence among states, hindering cooperation on common challenges. In a world of complex and interlinked threats and challenges, banking on national capabilities alone cannot sustain peace and security. Terrorism and violent extremism, transnational organized crime, global challenges like climate change, migration. No state can handle these alone. These complex security challenges demand cooperative responses. In recent years we have seen how eroding trust between states has deepened East-West tensions and reshaped security priorities for many OEC participating states. Strengthening security and stability throughout the way to Europe should be a key priority for both East and West. This means upholding the fundamental principles and commitments of European security, including those enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Fine Lact and the 1990 Paris Charter. We must protect our collective rule-based security order. We also need an inclusive security system and an inclusive security dialogue. In short, we need cooperative security. And this brings me to the security paradox that we currently face. We urgently need more dialogue. We need more cooperation to reduce tensions and to rebuild trust. Yet the space for dialogue and cooperation is shrinking just when collective action to face complex transnational threats is needed more than ever. So against this gloomy backdrop, how can the OEC help to rebuild trust? I will offer three points. First, the OEC offers a rare venue where inclusive dialogue and security is still possible. In particular, we offer a space for genuine East-West dialogue. A key platform of the OEC for this is the so-called structured dialogue, which focuses on political military matters, which are once again an urgent concern even in Europe. This flagship OEC initiative is in fact the only regular multilateral security dialogue in the wider Euro-Atlantic region today. State-owned and state-driven, this informal process has stimulated useful exchanges on threat perceptions, on forced postures and on military doctrines. It has also begun to discuss practical steps to reduce military tensions, avoiding or at least better managing military incidents could help prevent an escalation by accident. This risk is alarmingly real and needs to be better controlled. The structured dialogue can help to rebuild trust and confidence. Indeed it is a confidence-building measure in itself. But it depends on the willingness of our participating states to engage in good faith and to maintain the momentum. Second, the OEC offers a people-centered approach to security that focuses on improving the lives of those affected by conflict. This is also one of the priorities of our current OEC Chairman Chip by Slovakia. When we talk about security, the lives of people are what is really at stake. The lives of families and children, of individuals and of communities. And this is where security becomes concrete. And I know that this reality is well understood here on this island. In Europe today, we vividly see this in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Over 13,000 Ukrainians have died in this conflict and millions more have been displaced, lost loved ones and livelihoods. The OEC has played a pivotal role since the crisis in and around Ukraine erupted in 2014. When we were the only international organization accepted by all sides. We rapidly deployed the special monitoring mission to Ukraine, the SMM, and contributed in a very significant way to prevent a further escalation of the conflict. At the political level, the OEC facilitates efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement to the conflict through the so-called trilateral contact group, where all the signatories of the Minsk agreements sit at the same table. The special monitoring mission to Ukraine works hard to alleviate human suffering in addition to monitoring the ceasefire. Last year alone, the SMM brokered over a thousand local so-called windows of silence to enable repairs to critical infrastructure, making sure that millions of people on both sides of the line of contact continue to have access to water, to gas and to electricity. These windows of silence also contribute to preventing escalation of local ceasefire violations. After more than five years of fighting, there are now signs of a new dynamic which could create new opportunities for peace. We have seen confidence-building measures like the recent exchange of detainees between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. We've seen efforts by the sides to disengage from the three identified pilot areas. And just last week, the new bridge at Staniska Luganska was open. After four years of having to crawl up the steep and dangerous steps of the heavily damaged old bridge, local residents can now at least safely cross the line of contact in the Lugansk region. And we are talking about around 10,000 crossings a day. Confidence-building measures are important, but obviously they're not enough. Ultimately, achieving sustainable peace in the Donbas depends on the political will of the sides. All sides must make concerted efforts to create an enabling environment for moving conflict resolution forward, and that is implementing the Minsk agreements. Constructive engagement by all parties is crucial, and I hope that next month's summit of the Normandy 4, that is Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, will give a strong political signal to the sides that time has come to take some significant steps towards bringing peace to the people of Eastern Ukraine. The OEC also engages in conflict management efforts elsewhere, in Moldova, for instance, and in the South Caucasus. Conflict prevention and conflict management is the OEC's core business, and we have a long track record of successfully containing conflicts. Resolving them, however, is a far more challenging task. The OEC can facilitate conflict resolution, but ultimately it depends on the political will of the parties to engage in good-face negotiations and take decisive steps towards the lasting solution. As a third point, I wish to stress that we cannot afford to be complacent in tackling the security challenges we face today. We must be pragmatic. Without losing sight of the principles at the foundation of our shared security, we urgently need to seek engagement and cooperation in areas where interests converge. I already mentioned transnational threats, but today we are also confronting what can only be described as a technological revolution, offering possibilities and risks that we are barely beginning to understand. Unfortunately, there is not yet much policy thinking about new emerging technologies, about how emerging technologies will affect security. Indeed, the vast majority of current national strategies on artificial intelligence make no link between AI and security issues. Not even its potential use by terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups. At the OEC, we are already starting to explore how new technologies can both amplify and counter transnational threats, like terrorism, like human trafficking, as well as their implications for human rights and for media freedom. And in Ukraine, our special monitoring mission is at the forefront in using new technologies and monitoring and for enhancing security for our staff. New technology, meaning UIVs, cameras, et cetera. I'm convinced that thanks to our comprehensive approach to security and our extensive experience with security-related issues, the OEC could become a useful platform for meaningful dialogue on technology and security. And given our history, we might even develop confidence-building measures in some areas. In fact, all 57 OEC-participating states have already agreed to 16 pioneering confidence-building measures for cybersecurity. These cyber-CBMs are designed to reduce the risk of misperception and miscalculation associated with the use of ICT technologies by states. Every state has an interest to cooperate to prevent it-for-tact reactions or a dangerous escalation that risks triggering conventional military responses. Ladies and gentlemen, the complexity and diversity of the challenges that we face today call for fresh ideas, call for new approaches. Getting stuck in old patterns of thinking and interaction creates a risk in itself. Increasing dialogue among states is absolutely critical, but we also need to engage a wider range of stakeholders to find solutions to the key security challenges of our time. So I'm particularly glad to have this chance to talk with you today. Thank you for your attention, and now I'm ready to respond to your comments or questions.