Should We Preserve the OSCE as a Platform for Dialogue?

On Monday, October 3, 2022, at the Warsaw Human Dimension Conference Center for Civil Liberties as a member of the Civic Solidarity Platform took part in a panel discussion: Taking a Discussion on the Failure of the International System to a Level Up: Should We Preserve the OSCE as a Platform for Dialogue? Is Addressing the Accountability Gap a Political Problem?

Background:

In the course of the 20th century, failing twice to liberate humanity from the horrors of war and witnessing the most terrifying, inhuman and utterly ugly events such as the First and Second World War, Holocaust the international community put a great effort into the development of the IHL, promotion of human rights and establishment of organizations aimed at securing peace (UN, OSCE, EU, NATO). The establishment of the OSCE opts to bring a radical change to the Eurasia region.

Yuri Dzhibladze pointed out: “amidst the worst international crisis caused by the large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, we in civil society feel that we cannot continue speaking at OSCE events only about the non-implementation of particular commitments. We have addressed this for ages and see now in what a mess the world has ended up, without a proper reaction to systemic problems of comprehensive security, including the human dimension. We clearly see a key principle at work: when a state practices systematic repression and is not held to account, it becomes an aggressor and a threat to world peace”.

Acknowledging that the international system failed to prevent the biggest war since WWII, we need to take our discussion about the future to a level up. Some believe that we are lucky the OSCE still exists and see its continued value as a platform for dialogue. However, the Helsinki concept worked only for a short period when States shared the founding values. When divisions grew, OSCE instruments of monitoring, educating, and assisting States became ineffective. Perhaps, even in a situation of expanding non-compliance, maintaining a platform for dialogue was important to prevent security breaches. But what is its value now, when a major war rages and when States’ approaches to international relations are so divergent? We do not have an answer but want to put this question on the table.

The focus should be on key overarching issues. The accountability gap in the international justice system is one such overarching problem. We need to end impunity for large-scale systematic violations, such as political persecution, suppression of freedoms of assembly and expression, torture, and enforced disappearances.

We urgently need to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, committed in Ukraine by Russia and its accomplice, the Lukashenka regime. National justice systems are not willing or capable to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes. There are also gaps in the architecture of international law. The ICC will select only a few cases of war crimes in Ukraine. Proposals were made to establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine but no progress has been made. The accountability gap is not merely a legal issue; it needs to be addressed at the political level by States. We need courage and leadership by States who care.

Panelists:

• Yuri Dzhibladze (Poland/Russia, moderator):
• Anders Mellbourn (Swedish OSCE Network, Sweden)
• Antanina Maslyko (Netherlands Helsinki Committee, Netherlands/Belarus)
• Olga Zakharova (Freedom Files, Poland)
• Sasha Romantsova (Centre for Civil Liberties, Ukraine)
• Svetlana Astrakhantseva (Moscow Helsinki Group, Russia)

Anders Mellbourn noted “almost 50 years ago Andrei Sakharov formulated a key principle: peace, progress, and human rights are three inextricably linked goals, and humanity cannot achieve one of them while neglecting the others. This comprehensive approach to international security issues became the basis for the creation of the OSCE. According to the Helsinki principles, comprehensive security has three interrelated dimensions, and they correspond to the Sakharov triad. This fundamental principle of the Helsinki process as well as the importance of multilateralism are as essential today as they were 50 years ago. We need to preserve them and develop new instruments and mechanisms that would allow these principles to be effectively put to work to peace, progress, and human rights in the time when many States are not like-minded anymore”.

Antanina Maslyko confirms: “some believe that we are lucky the OSCE still exists and see its continued value as a platform for dialogue. However, the Helsinki concept worked only in a short period when States shared the founding values. When divisions have grown in the last two decades, OSCE instruments of monitoring, educating, and assisting States were gradually becoming increasingly ineffective. Perhaps, even in a situation of expanding non-compliance, maintaining a platform for dialogue was important to prevent security breaches. However, stronger action was needed to respond to growing violations and non-implementation of commitments before they became systemic and systematic in Russia, Belarus and some other States, allowing impunity to prevail and eventually permitting these States to turn into aggressors. What is the value of “platform for dialogue” now, when a major war rages and when States’ approaches to international relations are so divergent?”

Olga Zakharova believes: “When OSCE became paralyzed because of the abuse of the consensus rule by violating States who do not share the founding values anymore, undermine the atmosphere of trust which is so essential for the  OSCE as a platform for dialogue concept, and are not interested in the effective work in the human dimension, we in civil society were calling for the use of non-consensual tools as much as possible for a timely reaction to early warning signs of human dimension crisis which may lead to security breaches. 

These include more regular application of the Vienna and the Moscow Mechanism and seeing them not as a “nuclear option” undermining trust but as living implementation of the key principle of human rights problems not being an internal matter of States but a matter of legitimate concern of all other States; creative interpretation of the mandates of OSCE institutions, allowing them to be more effective and respond to new challenges; more active use of the powers of OSCE Chairmanship to organize events (such as this conference), make public statements, appoint Special Representatives such as a Representative on Civil Society, etc.; stronger political follow-up to conclusions and recommendations in monitoring reports and conference reports; a stronger role of the Human Dimension Committee; applying the principle of leading by example – such as by the States holding Chairmanship going through scrutiny of self-evaluation of its own implementation of OSCE commitments; establishing informal groups of States to pursue particular goals within the OSCE; and last but not least – enhancing cooperation and engagement of States and institutions with civil society in all three dimensions, using information and expertise of NGOs, treating them as key actors in ensuring implementations of OSCE commitments. Finally, we are calling for a shift from the emphasis on trying to overcome paralysis in the OSCE and fruitless efforts to restore trust where it is absent and where dialogue is only imitated by autocrats, to the active use of expert assessment and recommendations by OSCE bodies in the foreign policy of democratic states. 

When progress through multilateral action is blocked, democratic States should take responsibility for addressing key problems through their foreign policy and collective action outside the OSCE“.

Svetlana Astrakhantseva suggested that: “We are not ready to give up on the OSCE yet but we have a strong sense of urgency for major changes in the way OSCE operates. Approaching 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act in 2025 under the Chairmanship of Finland provides a good occasion to elaborate proposals on reforms of the OSCE and start implementing them. We cannot wait until 2025. A process of reflection about the failures and the gaps, and what needs to be preserved and what needs to be left behind, which new decision-making and implementation tools and mechanisms should be developed MUST start now so that by 2025 we have a set of concrete proposals for states to decide upon. 

Other inter-governmental organizations are ahead of the OSCE in such a process of critical reflection. For example, the Council of Europe has established three months ago a High-Level Reflection Group composed of prominent former politicians, and a Summit is planned in May next year to adopt decisions on reforms. We need a similar process in the OSCE, and we need it now. The critical reflection process should be not confined to deliberations by diplomats but involve broad circles of civil society, academia, political groups, and active citizens. This would ensure stronger ownership of the OSCE by states and societies and make it more grounded in real life. 

On our part, we in the Civic Solidarity Platform are ready to ensure that civil society plays an important role in this process and are willing to work with the Finnish Chairpersonship, interested States, and OSCE institutions towards making OSCE more effective and capable to adequately respond to new challenges”.

Sasha Romantsova Center for Civil Liberties, Executive Director, Center for Civil Liberties, Ukraine highlighted: “Ending impunity and making the violators accountable is an example of a task which is of key importance but cannot be taken care within the OSCE framework. It is the responsibility of states to take the lead in taking effective action to ensure justice. The accountability gap in the international justice system is an overarching problem that became particularly acute during the times of the ongoing war. But it is important not only in times of conflicts and wars: we need to end impunity for large-scale systematic human rights violations, such as political persecution, suppression of freedoms of assembly and expression, torture, and enforced disappearances – before they change the nature of political regimes to such extent that they become aggressors.

Today, when we deal with the unprecedented Russian aggression, we urgently need to ensure accountability for war crimes, crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, committed in Ukraine by Russia and its accomplice, the Lukashenka regime – and equally important, for the crime of aggression. During the 30 years of independence, the Russian Federation committed such international crimes in Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, Syria and other conflicts, most of which took place within the borders of the Russian Federation.

The Ukrainian justice system will not be able to cope with a huge number of cases on its own – currently, there are almost 40,000 cases according to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. All the more so as the liberation of the occupied territories continues, and human rights defenders already have information about terrible mass war crimes in Kherson and other occupied cities.

National justice systems in other countries are not capable to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes on the basis of universal jurisdiction – specialized units have limited resources, and prosecutors and judges on the ground often do not see why it is their country’s national interest in investigating, putting on trial and prosecuting culprits from another country.

So, we need to create a special tribunal to try crimes of aggression against Ukraine and some kind of hybrid mechanism to try all international crimes committed by every Russian soldier and officer against the people of Ukraine. The accountability gap is not just a legal problem; it must be decided at the political level by the states. We need the courage and leadership of states that care”.

The panel discussion was followed by a conversation with a question and answer session moderated by Yuri Dzhibladze.

Information note:

Civic Solidarity Platform – brings together non-governmental organizations committed to improving the human rights situation in Europe, Eurasia and North America. Its aim is to serve as a conduit through which civic activists can build alliances, strengthen mutual support and solidarity, and improve their influence on national and international human rights policy.

The Center for Civil Liberties – is Kyiv base think tank established in 2007. The activities of the Center are aimed at protecting human rights and promoting democracy in Ukraine and the OSCE region. The organization is known for its work on improving legislation, implementing public control practices, conducting educational activities and protecting persecuted people in the occupied territories of Crimea and Donbas. The organization widely engages ordinary people in human rights work through its human rights campaigns and volunteer initiatives.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) – is the world’s largest regional security-oriented intergovernmental organization with observer status at the United Nations. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control, promotion of human rights, freedom of the press, and free and fair elections.