Print
Rate this article
(votes: 1, rating: 5)
 (1 vote)
Share this article
Natalia Viakhireva

PhD in Political Science, RIAC Program Manager

This summer the world celebrates the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. The jubilee session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was held in Finland's capital in early July, but the festivities turned pretty sour since Finland banned the entry of several members of the Russian delegation and Moscow refused to attend amidst the Russia-West relationship having become very problematic due the ongoing Ukraine crisis and sanctions.

This summer the world celebrates the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki Final Act. The jubilee session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly was held in Finland's capital in early July, but the festivities turned pretty sour since Finland banned the entry of several members of the Russian delegation and Moscow refused to attend amidst the Russia-West relationship having become very problematic due the ongoing Ukraine crisis and sanctions.

Here RIAC Program Manager Natalia Evtikhevich, PhD in Political Science, shares her opinion on the event, having participated in the Helsinki+40 seminar and having served as the coordinator of the Helsinki+40 project for RIAC.

The Gala Session

In the 1970s, Finland made a major contribution to the easing of international tensions. In 1969, the Finnish government offered the Europeans, the U.S.A. and Canada its services for organizing a pan-European forum, and on July 30, 1975, Helsinki gathered the heads of these governments at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which on August 1, 1975 gave birth to the Helsinki Final Act.

Interestingly, the event was preceded by the Youth Security Conference, which produced a three-part communiqué covering security, economic cooperation and human rights. Spencer Oliver, the OSCE PA Secretary General, brought up the larger matter, since he had been a participant in the forum as the president of the Young Democrats of America.

This is just a single case when the youth initiative did its part in the development of a momentous political process.

The same historic hall where the Helsinki Final Act had been signed hosted the 24th annual session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, which was timed to coincide with the festive date of July 6, 2015. However, the spirit and the mood of the original event were definitely missing this time around.

akg-images / RIA Nowosti
In the 1970s, the parties had the political will for
settling problems and establishing appropriate
institutions to enhance security, which must have
been a key factor for its success

Notably, for the first time in history the session was held without an official Russian presence since Chairman of the Russian State Duma Sergey Naryshkin, head of the Russian delegation, and several more of its members were banned from entering Finland because of EU sanctions against Russian officials. Consequently, the entire group refused to attend the event in this diminished status, even after OSCE PA President Ilkka Kanerva invited the remaining members to take part.

This decision by the Finnish authorities caused much controversy because the session is an annual forum held by a multilateral organization and problems in the Russian-Finnish bilateral relations should remain beyond its purview. And the attendees did not hesitate to discuss this issue.

Opening the plenary session, Mr. Kanerva expressed hope that the dialogue would remain constructive, stressing that it "incorporates Russia on a par with other member countries." In an interview with Kommersant newspaper, Mr. Oliver said: "It’s a shame that the Russian delegation didn't participate in the session, although the choice was ours and not Russian."

At the plenary session, a German parliamentarian stated that peace and security could be established only through the joint actions of the assembly members rather than by confrontation, since consensus is the key principle of collective security. "Of course, we can take convenient decisions without the absent delegations. But such decisions will hardly bring us closer to a settlement and peace and security in Europe. An Italian delegate underlined the importance of the dialogue, having observed that Russia cannot be excluded from the processes of European integration.

Russia regards the OSCE as a solid platform for dialogue, where it has acted as an equal partner and participated in decision-making process. During the Ukraine crisis the OSCE seemed to be one of the few multilateral forums suitable for reaching agreements.

However, Russia appears to be losing this instrument. The OSCE PA adopted a resolution condemning Russia for its actions in Ukraine and near its borders. The statement accuses Russia of a "unilateral and unjustified assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity" and the "violation of Helsinki principles." What we have is another wave of charges, this time unilateral rather than reciprocal. Russia is a party indispensable for reaching a settlement, as well as for developing relationships along the Euro-Atlantic dimension. Hence, the restriction of Russia's participation in international engagements and its exclusion from international forums seem hardly constructive.

Historic parallels are not always pertinent, since it is quite difficult to compare the world 40 years ago with its clear-cut bipolar system and distinct confrontational parameters and the world of today which is better characterized by transformation, new challenges and threats to security. Nevertheless, in the 1970s, the situation was under no less strain and no less complicated in terms of decision-making. At the Helsinki+40 seminar held under Chatham House rules, a diplomat who directly participated in the preparations for the Security Conference in Europe stressed that in those days, the parties had the political will for settling problems and establishing appropriate institutions to enhance security, which must have been a key factor for its success.

The Day Before

picture alliance /Vostock Photo
Natalia Evtikhevich:
New Aspects of the Ukraine Crisis: Civil Society

The Helsinki+40 seminar was held on July 5, on the eve of the anniversary plenary session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

The final event of the Helsinki+40 project was implemented under OSCE auspices with the participation of the Russian International Affairs Council and several other European and American think tanks. It took them as long as 18 months to develop proposals for reforming and strengthening the OSCE, summarizing them in the report Helsinki+40: Building the OSCE of the Future. The Russian ideas were incorporated, although far from all the provisions are incontestable.

Experts admit that the Helsinki principles remain both topical and meaningful. The Ukraine disaster has unearthed bottlenecks in the OSCE, in particular the insufficiently effective instruments for settling crises and the time-consuming decision-making process. However, the OSCE is known to be the most potent crisis settlement organization today. The only viable solution lies in pacifying Ukraine by political means. The report says that the decision-making process in the OSCE lacks transparency, while its missions are very effective and play an important part in its operations.

The OSCE still lacks legal capacity, which is a weak point hampering its actions. To this end, the report underlines the significance of the Parliamentary Assembly which serves as a bridge between the OSCE executive body and the populations of the member countries. Interactions with partner organizations are also helpful, especially in the Mediterranean region.

Under the present circumstances, the role of think tanks appears absolutely vital as they provide an opportunity for maintaining an open dialogue that is often shrinking even under Track 2 diplomacy. In addition, they offer quality analytics to the concerned public, which is sometimes unaware of international realities, for example about the OSCE. The settlement of both hot and frozen conflicts requires joint efforts by all actors including parliamentarians, international bodies and the expert community.

Rate this article
(votes: 1, rating: 5)
 (1 vote)
Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. In your opinion, what are the US long-term goals for Russia?
    U.S. wants to establish partnership relations with Russia on condition that it meets the U.S. requirements  
     33 (31%)
    U.S. wants to deter Russia’s military and political activity  
     30 (28%)
    U.S. wants to dissolve Russia  
     24 (22%)
    U.S. wants to establish alliance relations with Russia under the US conditions to rival China  
     21 (19%)
For business
For researchers
For students