Statement at the Meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly BureauMonday, April 27, 2020
Mr. President, Secretary General Montella, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this Bureau meeting. I commend you for your efforts to ensure that the work of the Assembly continues and that this body responds to the urgent challenges all of our countries face. I particularly welcome the information you have put online about the participating States’ responses to the covid-19 pandemic and the role of legislative bodies in formulating those responses. Parliamentary oversight is essential, not expendable, in an emergency. Since my last report in Luxembourg, I have focused on the profound threat of rising and increasingly deadly intolerance. Anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic attacks in my own country, at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh and the targeted killings of Latin Americans in El Paso, Texas, underscore the urgency of this threat. Obviously, the pandemic creates new and additional challenges. But it is precisely at this moment that we cannot afford to lower our guard against discrimination and bigotry, when pandemic fears may fan the flames of intolerance. Minority and immigrant communities are already more vulnerable to the impact of the pandemic because of past inequalities. Those disparities may be compounded without appropriately targeted healthcare and economic responses. Covid-caused disruptions in education may also have long-term disproportionate consequences for those already impacted by discriminatory schooling. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to ensure that the measures we introduce and which our governments implement are consistent with OSCE standards on human rights and democracy, including the 1991 Moscow Document’s commitments regarding states of emergency. It is also vital that our parliamentary oversight extends to the use of military authorities and policing, which may have the potential to exacerbate relations with minority communities and erode public confidence in government at a time when that trust is critical for the effective implementation of responses to this virus. Disciplinary and punitive policies by national or local authorities run the risk of backfiring. As this body’s special representative on anti-Semitism and racism, I am alarmed by attacks on people who are being scapegoated for this virus. Parliamentarians should lead by example in countering disinformation, conspiracy theories, and other propaganda that stokes anti-Asian bigotry, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and other forms of racism. In the face of an extraordinary threat, people may feel that ordinary constraints on governments do not apply. But too often, temporary changes introduced for emergencies have a way of becoming permanent. I welcome the statements by my Third Committee colleagues that have called for the participating States’ responses to meet the basic tests of necessity, transparency, and proportionality. It is also crucial that they include sunset provisions and subject to periodic review. When democratic norms erode, protections against hate crimes do too. Mr. President, I will be reporting more fully on my activities later this year at a more opportune time, when we will all be able to assess the very fluid, unfolding challenges. Covid-19 will undoubtedly lead to profound changes in all our countries for a long time to come. I thank you and my colleagues here today for the work you are doing to ensure that we meet a global crisis with global cooperation faithful to the commitments we have undertaken in the OSCE.
Hastings, Wicker, Moore, and Hudson Mark the Third Anniversary of Joseph Stone’s Death in UkraineThursday, April 23, 2020
WASHINGTON—Three years after the death of Joseph Stone, a U.S. paramedic serving with the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) recalled Stone’s tragic death in the Russia-driven conflict and lamented the suffering of civilians who remain the chief victims of Kremlin aggression. Stone was killed on April 23, 2017, when his vehicle struck a landmine in Russian-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine. “Another year has passed since Joseph Stone lost his life, and still Moscow’s war in eastern Ukraine rages on,” said Chairman Hastings. “Stone was killed as he helped document the senseless human suffering inflicted by the Kremlin’s assault on Ukraine. Even amidst a global pandemic, we must not forget the civilians with courage like Stone, who remain on the frontlines of conflict zones globally.” Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS) underlined the Russian Government’s responsibility for the war’s ongoing toll and affirmed that the Kremlin would continue to face consequences for its aggression. “The Kremlin continues to fuel this war while denying its direct involvement,” said Co-Chairman Wicker. “Joseph Stone’s death three years ago was a direct result of Russian aggression, which is only part of Vladimir Putin’s broader campaign against Ukraine. Our sanctions will remain in place until Moscow changes course and Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored.” Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-04) celebrated Stone’s contributions to regional security and condemned the threats OSCE monitors continue to face in the field. “Born in my district in Milwaukee, Joseph Stone was a courageous young man whose life tragically ended much too soon. All OSCE states, including Russia, must do everything possible to support the OSCE monitors who, to this day, face unacceptable threats and restrictions as they shine a light on the daily cost of this needless war,” said Rep. Moore. Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08), who also chairs the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Political Affairs and Security, called for the immediate lifting of new, baseless restrictions imposed by Russian-led forces under the pretext of COVID-19. “Even as OSCE monitors seek to report on the COVID-19 outbreak’s impact on vulnerable populations, Russian-controlled forces are using so-called quarantine restrictions to deny them access,” Rep. Hudson said. “The increasing limitations by Moscow-led forces also stall crucial humanitarian shipments and services by international organizations. This obstruction and harassment must cease immediately.” The SMM was established in 2014 to monitor implementation of the Minsk agreements, which were designed to bring peace to eastern Ukraine. It is an unarmed, civilian mission that serves as the international community’s eyes and ears on the security and humanitarian situation in the conflict zone. The SMM operates under a mandate adopted by consensus among the 57 OSCE participating States, including the United States, Russia, and Ukraine. It currently fields roughly 750 monitors, approximately 600 of whom are in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. The United States supports the SMM by providing 54 monitors (the largest contingent) and has contributed more than $140 million to the mission since its inception.
Ongoing Transatlantic Engagement through the OSCE Parliamentary AssemblyFriday, April 17, 2020
Madam SPEAKER, I rise to today to update my Congressional colleagues on continued discussions between members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly. I would also like to share the desire of our international friends and allies to remain engaged with the United States during these challenging times. My colleagues who serve with me on the U.S. Helsinki Commission and remain active include Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Representative Robert Aderholt of Alabama, Representative Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, as well as Senator Wicker of Mississippi and Senator Cardin of Maryland. As the United States Delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, we recognize the importance of building partnerships with our counterparts from other countries especially during such unprecedented times. As the Chairman of the Committee on Security, I recognize multilateral diplomacy works to U.S. interests when we take the initiative. Parliamentarians have a special role to play as elected officials in this process, showing the depth of each of our country’s commitment to security and cooperation not only in Europe, but around the globe. During our most recent video conference, Italian Minister for European Affairs, Vincenzo Amendola, joined to update us on Italy’s response to COVID-19. He stressed the need for continued cooperation in response not only to the health threat but also to the economic havoc the pandemic has caused. Shortly after our video conference concluded, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the United States will provide an additional $225 million in health, humanitarian and economic assistance to boost response efforts worldwide. This is in addition to the $274 million already deployed to fight COVID-19. In the past two decades, the Secretary noted, the United States has provided $140 billion in health assistance globally, helping to make us an undisputed leader in health and humanitarian aid. Some of this aide has been to countries in Europe, including Italy. I would add that this is not only a reflection of our country’s unmatched generosity over the decades, but our national interest as well. Many of the health threats we have faced come from beyond our borders, including COVID-19, and we have an interest in trying to respond effectively to those threats where they first develop, before they reach our shores. A final outcome of the recent video conference was endorsement of United Nation Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ recent call for a ceasefire regarding conflicts around the globe at this time when countries need to face a common pandemic threat. The Helsinki Commission provides Members of Congress with the opportunity to work with our friends and allies around the globe to promote our shared democratic values and work in a bipartisan fashion on core foreign policy issues. While our calls have been focused on fighting COVID-19 we are still tracking other international conflicts. For example, during the video conference I, along with other parliamentarians, raised the issue of the unwarranted Russian aggression in Ukraine and Georgia. I am encouraged by the level of engagement from my OSCE Parliamentary Assembly colleagues and will continue to work with them through this global pandemic. Madam SPEAKER, please join me today recognizing the importance of these discussions with our European allies and friends.
Expressing the United States’ Solidarity with Friends and Allies in EuropeTuesday, April 07, 2020
Madam SPEAKER, I rise to report discussions I had last week during a video conference with members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly, and their response to COVID-19. Let me stress at the outset that our country has not only treaty-bound allies in Europe, but genuine friends. Our friends and colleagues abroad welcomed Senator Roger Wicker and my participation on behalf of the United States to discuss how we will continue our important duties amidst the dire situation facing the globe. I reported on the increasingly dire situation here in the United States and the efforts of the U.S. Congress to provide relief to our citizens. We all expressed solidarity with each other and a determination to move forward. Every country in Europe is affected by this pandemic, Madam Speaker, just as every state in the United States is affected. The President of the Lombardy in Italy spoke about the particularly critical situation his region is facing. In a crisis like this, while we have our primary responsibilities here at home, it is imperative we continue to help our international friends and partners. I assured our partners that the United States will continue to support our allies and provide considerable assistance to public health worldwide. Such expressions of transatlantic unity, in my view, are important in times like these. They give our European friends and allies the confidence they need to move forward. It also helps to counter the considerable amount of misinformation and misperception currently spreading and dispel the malign influence attached to offers of help and friendship from elsewhere around the globe. We cannot let ulterior motives divide and weaken our ties at this time of vulnerability. In spite of this crisis, other threats to European security have not gone away. Russian aggression against its neighbors, terrorist threats, and protracted conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus all still exist, requiring our continued attention. Much of our parliamentary conversation focused on how we can address these continual challenges we face while we are unable to meet and deliberate in person as scheduled. Despite the uncertainty, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly will find a way and with a little creativity, will continue having these important discussions. A final point made in the video conference is the need to defend our democratic principles and human rights in a time where restrictions and limits are imposed that could be abused. Our country defended Europe from tyranny last century, so it is rewarding to see our friends and allies determined to preserve those gains moving forward into this century. Madam Speaker, we have the capacity to address the ongoing threats to our security even as we address this unprecedented public health crisis amidst an economic downturn. The bicameral group of legislators who serve on the U.S. Helsinki Commission do so in a bipartisan way, and when we participate in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, we do so with our European friends and allies in this effort. I concluded from my discussions last week that more difficult times may lie ahead, but by working together, we will persevere. Madam SPEAKER, please join me today recognizing the importance of these discussions with our European allies and friends. Thank you, Madam SPEAKER. I yield back the balance of my time.
Congressional Delegation Led by Chairman Hastings Champions U.S. Leadership in Transatlantic Security, Human RightsTuesday, February 25, 2020
WASHINGTON—Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) last week led a bicameral, bipartisan congressional delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s (OSCE PA) 19th Winter Meeting in Vienna, Austria. At the meeting, Chairman Hastings and other members of the delegation engaged with OSCE officials, delegations from other OSCE participating States, and diplomats to advance U.S. interests while assuring friends, allies, and potential adversaries of the U.S. commitment to security and cooperation in Europe. The 11-member delegation was among the largest U.S. delegations ever to attend the annual gathering, which attracted more than 300 parliamentarians from 53 OSCE participating States. Chairman Hastings, a former president of the OSCE PA, was joined in Austria by Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS), Ranking Member Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02), and Helsinki Commissioners Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-04), Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09), Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-04), and Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08). Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY-05), Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX-35), and Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01) also joined the delegation, which benefited from the active support of Ambassador James Gilmore, the U.S. Representative to the OSCE. In the Standing Committee, which oversees the OSCE PA’s work, Chairman Hastings highlighted recommendations resulting from a seminar for young parliamentarians on “Future Leadership for Political Inclusion in the OSCE Region,” hosted in Washington in early February by the Helsinki Commission and the OSCE PA. “We brought together some 35 young parliamentarians from 19 OSCE participating States and three partner States to learn from each other and incubate the solutions of the future,” Chairman Hastings said. “As I called on all of you at our last meeting in Marrakech, we must counter the economic and social despair afflicting our youth and we all have a role.” At the same committee, Co-Chairman Wicker, who serves as a vice president of the assembly, shared his recent experience at the Munich Security Conference. The committee also reviewed a written report submitted by former Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04), OSCE PA Special Representative on Human Trafficking Issues. In the committee focused on security issues, Rep. Hudson condemned Russia’s violations of Helsinki principles related to its aggression against Ukraine, while in the committee focusing on economic issues Rep. Harris cautioned Europe regarding the growing Chinese presence in the region. During a special debate on confronting anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance in the OSCE region, Helsinki Commission Ranking Member Sen. Ben Cardin (MD), who serves as the OSCE PA Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance, delivered introductory remarks by video. “It is our responsibility to safeguard our democracies by speaking out and using our tools and voices as legislators against those who would divide our societies,” Sen. Cardin said. Later in the debate, Rep. Cohen urged participating States “to teach Holocaust history, which a fourth of the people in Europe or more don't understand or remember, and teach it so that the most horrific crime against humanity will be remembered so that it will not be repeated.” Rep. Cleaver linked anti-Semitism to broader trends of intolerance in society, and called OSCE participating States to action, stating, “There are many scary things in our world, but there is nothing quite able to generate fright like prejudice inspired by ignorance and nationalism manufactured by fear.” Rep. Hudson chaired a meeting of the OSCE PA Ad Hoc Committee on Countering Terrorism, and Rep. Moore participated in a similar meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on Migration. On the margins of the Winter Meeting’s official sessions, members of Congress met with the Ukrainian delegation to the OSCE PA to discuss U.S. support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty in the face of unrelenting Russian aggression. Delegation members also met with OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger, Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Director Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, Special Representative and Coordinator for Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings Valiant Richey, and High Commissioner for National Minorities Lamberto Zannier.
Transatlantic Network of Young Legislators Releases Joint Declaration on Future Leadership for Political Inclusion in the OSCE RegionWednesday, February 19, 2020
WASHINGTON—Following a two-day seminar hosted by the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) in early February, nearly 20 young legislators from OSCE participating States today issued the Joint Declaration on Future Leadership for Political Inclusion in the OSCE Region. The declaration builds upon discussions among seminar participants—all national legislators from OSCE participating States and Partners for Cooperation—about the important role young people can and must play in addressing emerging human rights and security challenges worldwide. Each signatory resolves that the respective legislative bodies included in the declaration will empower young leadership and pursue goals including enhancing parliamentary diplomacy, promoting a declaration of a climate emergency in every OSCE participating State, and ensuring common security. The declaration reads in part: “Whereas, the role of young people in promoting human rights, peace, and security efforts in both national and international fora must not be underestimated or diminished at this critical juncture for democracies around the globe; “Whereas, comprehensive security, be it politico-military security, economic and environmental security, or human rights, faces more hybrid, malicious, and multiplying threats than we realize; “Whereas, multilateral institutions like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the respective parliamentary assemblies, must maintain their stature and utilize its greatest asset for building a brighter future, the youth…” “Youth leadership driven by political inclusion is vital to combating the challenges of both today and tomorrow, including environmental degradation and democratic backsliding,” said U.S. Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20), who chairs the Helsinki Commission. “This declaration is simply the first, welcome step toward developing a robust transatlantic network of young legislators who will work toward a secure, sustainable future for us all.” “This was an excellent opportunity to follow up on a call made by our Assembly during our Berlin Annual Session to establish a forum of young parliamentarians to foster greater mutual trust between OSCE participating States,” said OSCE PA President George Tsereteli. “Young people can play a crucial role in fostering a culture of peace, in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, in tackling current urgent issues such as climate change, the fight against terrorism and migration.” The declaration has been signed by 17 legislators from the OSCE region, including U.S. Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33) and US. Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-08). Both representatives serve as commissioners on the U.S. Helsinki Commission. Download the declaration.
The Power and Purpose of Parliamentary DiplomacyWednesday, February 05, 2020
While diplomats largely drive a nation’s foreign policy, elected members of national parliaments, including the U.S. Congress, also play a crucial role in influencing policy priorities, holding governments accountable, and providing a firmer democratic foundation to the advancement of peace, cooperation, and human rights across the globe. Through the parliamentary assemblies of organizations that play a critical role in international peace and security—the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—parliamentarians can advance national interests on the international stage. The U.S. Helsinki Commission convened the hearing to encourage inter-parliamentary dialogue and examine the role parliamentary diplomacy can play in responding to current challenges facing the OSCE and NATO. The hearing also demonstrated bipartisan U.S. support for multilateral engagement based on shared principles and common goals. Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) chaired the hearing and was joined by Commission Co-Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (MS) and Ranking Member Sen. Ben Cardin (MD), Commissioner Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02), and Rep. Filemon Vela (TX-34), a member of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Chairman Hastings’ opening statement highlighted the value of effective parliamentary forums in contributing to security cooperation in Europe and around the world. Co-Chairman Wicker’s opening remarks emphasized that transatlantic dialogue has become even more important given continued Russian aggression. “If diplomacy is war by other means, we should no more abandon the plenary hall than the battlefield,” he stated.” George Tsereteli, a member of the parliament of the Republic of Georgia and President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and Attila Mesterhazy, a member of the parliament of Hungary and the Acting President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, both testified at the hearing Tsereteli discussed the necessity of active and visible international cooperation. He specifically acknowledged the advantages of parliamentary diplomacy in facilitating “public discussions,” “additional communication channels between conflict parties,” and “fact-finding missions.” Tsereteli also addressed Russia’s rogue actions in Russian-occupied territories. While he voiced support for maintaining pressure on the Putin regime, he upheld the importance of continued dialogue and compromise. Mesterhazy’s testimony focused on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s recent achievements and its role in shaping the future of NATO. He contended that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly is a powerful complement to NATO because of the Assembly’s broad mandate, diverse membership, and utilization of majority voting. Mesterhazy also discussed Russian aggression in the region, asserting that “[the Ukraine War] is not a frozen conflict, it’s boiling” and commending the NATO Parliamentary Assembly for expelling the Russian delegation in 2014, following the illegal annexation of Crimea. The hearing provided insight on the parallels of multilateral engagement within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. Commissioners and panelists were able to address various issues facing transatlantic security and remain hopeful for the future of parliamentary diplomacy and cooperation.
Media Advisory: Chairman Hastings, OSCE PA President Tsereteli, and Commissioner Moore to Address International Gathering of Young Legislators on Capitol HillThursday, January 30, 2020
WASHINGTON—To empower future leaders in the North America, Europe, Central Asia, and beyond, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (U.S. Helsinki Commission), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), and other partners will convene a seminar for young legislators on Capitol Hill on Monday, February 3 and Tuesday, February 4, 2020. During the two-day program, leading young legislators from OSCE participating States, along with members of Congress and select guests, will discuss the role of young people in peace and security efforts in both national and international fora. Attendees also will engage with other political leaders to forge a transatlantic network for political action to address emerging human rights and security challenges. Members of the media are invited to attend the opening and closing sessions of the event. WHO: Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (opening and closing sessions) Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Gwen Moore (opening session) OSCE PA President George Tsereteli (closing session) Other Members of Congress to be confirmed Nearly 50 young legislators from 25 countries WHERE: U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Room HVC-210 (opening session) U.S. Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC-200/201 (closing session) WHEN: Monday, February 3, 2020 (opening session) 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Tuesday, February 4, 2020 (closing session) 1:15 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Members of the media must register in advance to attend the public sessions of the seminar by emailing csce[dot]press[at]mail[dot]house[dot]gov.
Human Rights and DemocracyWednesday, January 29, 2020
For nearly three decades, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has been at the forefront of efforts to promote human rights and democracy throughout the 57-nation OSCE region. Although best known for international election observation, ODIHR has also been instrumental in countering various forms of intolerance, helping governments combat human trafficking, protecting human rights defenders, and implementing OSCE commitments to fundamental freedoms. The U.S. Helsinki Commission convened the hearing to demonstrate bipartisan support for ODIHR, to reinforce the U.S.’s support related OSCE initiatives, and to hear about the ongoing work of ODIHR. Commission Ranking Member Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02) chaired the hearing and was joined by Commissioners Rep. Robert Aderholt (AL-04), Rep. Steve Cohen (TN-09), Rep. Gwen Moore (WI-04), and Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33). Rep. Wilson’s opening remarks highlighted the historic achievements of ODIHR, which include assisting countries to “transition from communism to democracy,” supporting “civil society participation in OSCE events,” and facilitating “strong cooperation with the Parliamentary Assembly.” In her first appearance before Congress, ODIHR Director Ambassador Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir addressed multiple challenges that have impeded the effectiveness of ODIHR activities. She then outlined ODIHR’s role in offering proactive solutions. In particular, Ambassador Gísladóttir stressed the importance of dialogue and asserted that democracy is about “respect and trust, an acceptance of differing opinions, an exchange of views, and the willingness to share power and seek compromise.” She concluded on an optimistic note, emphasizing unity within the OSCE and its “commitment to democracy and to the wellbeing of its people.” Although conscious of ODIHR’s efforts, commissioners voiced concerns that some OSCE participating States are not complying with their commitments to uphold basic human rights standards. Commissioners specifically acknowledged restrictions on religious freedom in Russia, poor conditions for activists and journalists, and rising anti-Semitism and discrimination against the Roma people across the region. This hearing continued the Helsinki Commission practice of regularly engaging with senior OSCE officials.The Commission typically holds hearing with the foreign minister of the country holding the rotating chairmanship of the OSCE. The Commission has also held hearings with previous ODIHR directors as well as the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.
Power of Parliamentary Diplomacy to Be Discussed at Helsinki Commission HearingMonday, January 27, 2020
WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following hearing: THE POWER AND PURPOSE OF PARLIAMENTARY DIPLOMACY Inter-Parliamentary Initiatives and the U.S. Contribution Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:30 a.m. Cannon House Office Building Room 210 Live Webcast: www.youtube.com/HelsinkiCommission While diplomats largely drive a nation’s foreign policy, elected members of national parliaments, including the U.S. Congress, also play a crucial role in influencing policy priorities, holding governments accountable, and providing a firmer democratic foundation to the advancement of peace, cooperation, and human rights across the globe. Through the parliamentary assemblies of organizations that play a critical role in international peace and security—the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—parliamentarians can advance national interests on the international stage. This hearing will examine the concept of parliamentary diplomacy, review the activities of both the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and assess the ways in which they parallel and support the multilateral diplomatic efforts of governments to follow shared principles and reach common goals. Witnesses also will discuss the many current challenges facing the NATO alliance and the OSCE region, the role played by the United States Congress, and possibilities for similar parliamentary initiatives elsewhere. The following witnesses are scheduled to participate: George Tsereteli, a member of the parliament of the Republic of Georgia and President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Attila Mesterhazy, a member of the parliament of Hungary and President (Acting) of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly
Election Observation 101Friday, January 24, 2020
On January 22, 2020, Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Mark Veasey (TX-33) moderated a roundtable at the Texas A&M School of Law titled “Election Observation 101: Strengthening Democracies Old and New in the 21st Century.” Rep. Veasey—who also is a co-chair of the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus and a former member of the Elections Committee in the Texas House of Representatives—and expert panelists discussed the importance of election observation missions across the OSCE region. Rep. Veasey was joined at the roundtable by veteran election observer Lindsay Lloyd, director of the human freedom initiative at the George W. Bush Institute; Amanda Schnetzer, chief operating officer of Pointe Bello; and Helsinki Commission Chief of Staff Alex T. Johnson. Law school dean Robert Ahdieh offered a warm welcome and reflected on his fondest memories of the Helsinki Commission as a young man living in Moscow, Russia. Rep. Veasey then set the stage with the 30-year celebration of the 1990 Copenhagen Document which established the international standards for “free and fair elections”, while Mr. Lloyd explained the dynamics of how teams are assembled. Mr. Johnson further clarified the role of observers as strict watchers or objective examiners, and never interventionists, and Ms. Schnetzer shared how her experience observing elections in Tunisia forever shaped her passion for civic engagement and democratic values. “[In 2011], the people of Tunisia were voting... To see the looks on the faces of women, grandparents coming to poles for the first time, casting a vote, and bringing a grandchild in tow, to say ‘I have waited all my life to do this’ was simply inspirational,” Ms. Schnetzer said. “I saw the stark comparison in the United States because few get excited on the first day they get to vote… I wish that we could find a way to positively spark that enthusiasm here [in the U.S.].” Looking ahead to the U.S. elections in November 2020, all panelists agreed that more could be done to inform the American public about foreign observers and the benefits of international election observation. Election observers from both the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly are expected to be invited by the United States Government to observe the 2020 elections. The OSCE was first invited to observe U.S. elections by the Bush Administration in 2002 and has been invited to observe every midterm and general election since (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018) by the administration in office. However, the decentralized nature of the U.S. electoral system means some states prohibit or greatly restrict foreign observers. A few states explicitly permit foreign observation, or at least a sufficiently public observation to include those from other countries.
Director of OSCE Office For Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to Testify at Helsinki Commission HearingWednesday, January 22, 2020
WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following hearing: HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY Obstacles and Opportunities in the OSCE Region Wednesday, January 29, 2020 10:00 a.m. Longworth House Office Building Room 1334 Live Webcast: www.youtube.com/HelsinkiCommission For nearly three decades, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) has been at the forefront of efforts to promote human rights and democracy throughout the 57-nation OSCE region. In her first appearance before Congress, ODIHR Director Ambassador Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir will discuss the organization’s flagship work in international election observation; countering anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance; and helping governments to combat human trafficking, protect human rights defenders, and better implement their commitments to fundamental freedoms including assembly and religion. The OSCE, the world’s largest regional security body, is based on a comprehensive concept of security that recognizes that respect for human rights and functioning democratic institutions underpin regional peace and security. ODIHR provides support, assistance, and expertise to participating States and civil society to promote democracy, rule of law, human rights, and tolerance and non-discrimination. ODIHR observes elections at the invitation of participating States, reviews legislation, and advises governments on how to develop and sustain democratic institutions. The office also works closely with the OSCE’s field operations and organizes Europe’s largest annual human rights meeting, bringing together annually hundreds of government officials, international experts, civil society representatives and human rights activists.
An Assessment of the Open Skies TreatyTuesday, January 14, 2020
By Juliet Michaelsen, Max Kampelman Fellow Recently, a somewhat obscure security and confidence-building measure returned to the headlines. In October 2019, reports surfaced that the Trump Administration was considering withdrawing from the Treaty on Open Skies, an overflight arrangement designed to boost military transparency and stability across 34 signatories in North American and Eurasia. What is the Open Skies Treaty? In 1955, President Eisenhower first proposed that the United States and Soviet Union allow aerial observation flights over each other’s territories to reduce the risk of miscommunication and subsequent war. Although initially rejected by the Soviets, the idea of Open Skies was revived by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. Bush built on Eisenhower’s vision, suggesting the agreement not just be between the United States and the Soviet Union, but also between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In 1992, the Open Skies Treaty was signed by the United States, Canada, Russia, and 21 European states. Since the treaty entered into force in 2002, membership has increased to 34 states. The treaty requires that all participants allow observation aircraft to fly over their territory to observe and take pictures of military forces and activities. These images are shared with the observing and observed states, and available for purchase by other treaty signatories. The Open Skies Treaty’s fundamental purpose—enhancing military transparency and cooperation—flows from the same set of commitments that underpin both the Helsinki Commission and the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As Alexandra Bell noted during a Helsinki on the Hill podcast on Open Skies, this “increased openness between militaries will reduce tensions between states and limit the probability of conflict [because] if you know what another country has, if it’s clearly observable to you, you don’t have to plan for things that you’re just guessing about.” Assessing the Treaty During the treaty’s almost 18 years of implementation, the parties have conducted over 1,500 observation flights. The cooperation required to solve logistical problems (such as air traffic control) and inspect planes is one important confidence-building measure. Another is the fact that host countries also have personnel on any observation flight, thus ensuring the flight stays within its agreed plan. This collaboration increases mutual trust and encourages cooperation. Additionally, the Open Skies Consultative Commission, the implementing body of the Open Skies Treaty based at the Organization for Security and Cooperation’s (OSCE) headquarters in Vienna, provides one of the few remaining forums where the United States and Russia can discuss problems and collaborate on solutions. The treaty also allows the United States to provide an important benefit to its allies and partners, who typically ride on flights conducted by the United States. Specifically, as Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver II noted during a joint hearing of the Helsinki Commission and the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and the Environment, the treaty “allows even small countries a way to get information on military activities around them [which] has been even more important given the Kremlin’s propensity to violate established borders.” One notable example came in December 2018 after Russia attached Ukrainian naval vessels near the Kerch Strait. The United States undertook an Open Skies flight, which was “intended to reaffirm U.S. commitment to Ukraine and other partner nations,” according to the Department of Defense, a message underscored by the flight’s inclusion of personnel from Canada, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Romania, and—crucially—Ukraine. The Open Skies Treaty also has heightened transparency, specifically between the United States and Russia. Both countries have conducted numerous observation flights over the other’s territory. The United States and its allies have flown about 500 flights over Russia since the treaty’s implementation, including 16 in 2019 alone. According to the State Department, the United States participated in nearly three times as many flights over Russia as Russia has over the United States. The images captured by these flights serve as a crucial, credible, unclassified source of information about Russian forces at a time when Europe and the United States are often uneasy about Russia’s intentions. The Open Skies Treaty does face criticism by some politicians and analysts. For example, a Senate resolution introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton calls for the United States’ withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, citing Russia’s partial non-compliance as a major problem the treaty. Specifically, Russia has restricted Open Skies flights over its military hub in Kaliningrad and restricted the conduct of flights near its border with South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, the State Department does not consider these problems insurmountable and has taken many steps to address these issues, including bringing the problem to the Open Skies Consultative Committee, restricting Russian flights over Hawaii, and denying access to two United States airbases. The Future of the Open Skies Treaty In the wake of President Trump’s reported plan to withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty, many members of Congress have expressed support for the agreement and warned of the dangers of withdrawal. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel first sounded the alarm in a publicly released letter to National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien on October 7, 2019. In the letter, Engel expressed concern about such reports and argued that “American withdrawal would only benefit Russia and be harmful for our allies’ and partners’ national security interests.” Soon after, numerous members of Congress came together to urge foreign policy officials to keep the treaty. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Smith and Sens. Robert Menendez and Jack Reed (the ranking members of the foreign relations and armed services committees, respectively), joined Rep. Engel in writing a letter to Secretary of State Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Esper, highlighting the importance of Open Skies. A similar letter was sent to Secretary Pompeo by 11 Democratic senators two weeks later. In November 2019, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Alcee L. Hastings co-sponsored the bipartisan “Open Skies Treaty Stability Act,” which would prevent the president from unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the treaty by setting conditions on any potential steps towards withdrawal. The bill specifically notes that “due to the significant benefits that observation missions under the Open Skies Treaty provide to the United States and United States allies, the United States should commit to continued participation in the Treaty; and the President should not withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty.” Support for the Open Skies Treaty extends beyond Capitol Hill. For example, in an October 20, 2019, Wall Street Journal contribution, former-national security officials George Shultz, William J. Perry and Sam Nunn suggested that “Open Skies has become what Eisenhower envisioned—a critical confidence-building treaty that improves Euro-Atlantic security with every flight. The U.S. should preserve this agreement, particularly in a time of renewed tensions with Russia.” Similar calls have come from abroad. The Political and Security Affairs Committee Chair of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) strongly urged the United States to stay in the treaty, citing the increased transparency and cooperation fostered by the agreement. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry expressed their interest in “maintaining and implementing this treaty” in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. The vocal advocacy both within and outside of the United States for the continuation of the Open Skies Treaty sheds light on its important role in Euro-Atlantic security and cooperation.
First Person: Nothing UnusualFriday, December 20, 2019
By Rachel Bauman, Policy Advisor Election day began like every November day in Belarus: black. Without the time change that makes a late-autumn morning in DC bearable, darkness enveloped Belarus until almost 9:00 a.m. We would be rising much earlier than that to observe the opening of the polls for the November 17 parliamentary election. This was my second election observation, after the first round of the Ukrainian presidential election in March 2019. That election was widely considered free and fair—a great achievement for a new democracy plagued by a Soviet legacy. In Belarus, the last election generally considered free and fair was the 1994 election of President Alexander Lukashenko, who remains in power, with essentially complete control over the government, 25 years later. Most Belarus-watchers suspected that much of the number-fudging was done before the arrival of election day observers. Early voting took place throughout the week before election day, providing an opportunity to inflate turnout numbers. Multiple opposition candidates could not even make it on the ballot due to selectively-imposed restrictions and technicalities applied to stamp out the competition well before voting took place. Neither I nor the other members of my election observation team (two diplomats already in Minsk: one from the U.S. Embassy, and one from the Swedish Embassy), expected many surprises from the conduct and outcome of the elections. The day started smoothly enough, with a standard, albeit sparsely attended, opening. As we moved on to other polling stations throughout the day, the conditions were mainly the same: observers registered with the chair of the election commission for that precinct and were seated at a table specifically for observers, both national and international. Sign directing voters to polling sites in Belarus. Because the vast majority of OSCE PA observers remained in the Minsk region, and we had traveled a few hours northeast to Vitebsk, we came across only Belarusian observers, whether from trade unions, political parties, or other groups. The observer tables were far enough away from the action that in most cases we could not see much of the voter sign-in and identification check process. When we asked to see the voter lists, we were denied in multiple instances. This was startling for me; in Ukraine, we wandered freely throughout polling stations and had access to everything. Nevertheless, the mood was festive and the people friendly. Music—from disco to Soviet favorites to patriotic tunes—played in the background at several polling places. We received candies in one location and a proud explanation of the region’s main industry in another. A few photos were taken with us, and at one polling place a neighboring observer remarked how interested she was that I had come all the way from the United States just for the election in Belarus! Despite the fun and frivolity, it became clear to us by the end of the day that, though we had seen no gross violations in conduct, the whole process lacked the transparency I had witnessed in Ukraine, or that should be expected in any OSCE country committed to democratic norms. Nowhere was this more apparent than during the count. As usual, we were confined to the observers’ table just far enough from where the action was taking place to limit real observation. The mobile voting, early voting, and election day ballots were collected and counted in one pile, silently. Because we could not fully see or hear the count, there was no way of knowing whether it was accurate, even though the precinct chairwoman came over occasionally to riffle through the marked ballots for us. By only 9:15 p.m.—the polls had closed at 8—the count was finished and a winner declared. Votes being counted at a polling site. Our next step was to follow our companions from the polling station to the District Election Commission, where they would deliver the results protocol and election materials. After watching a few deliveries from around the area and encountering many familiar faces from earlier in the day, we decided to head back to the hotel, arriving at a remarkably early 10:30 p.m. Though it was still a long and exhausting day, many such elections, including the one I’d observed in Ukraine, had counts lasting long into the night. The next morning’s results were both surprising and unsurprising. It was no great shock to see that the reported turnout was over 77 percent—suspiciously high for elections to a body with no real power. According to the Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, the OSCE International Election Observation Mission noted that early voting turnout in particular (35.77 percent) seemed inflated compared to the reports of observers. More disturbingly, not a single opposition candidate was elected (there had been two in the previous parliament). That Lukashenko would not permit even a semblance of pluralism calls into question the seriousness of his seeming attempts to court the West when faced with a revanchist and controlling Russia—a topic which the U.S. Helsinki Commission explored in a hearing held shortly after the election. Observers would be wise to watch the trajectory of the country as Lukashenko navigates his tricky relationships with the West and Russia. Ultimately, stability—in large part the stability of his own job—will be first in his mind as the 2020 Belarusian presidential election swiftly approaches. A major political upheaval is not likely in the cards. When my colleague stationed in Grodna asked a young independent observer if he’d seen anything interesting or unusual during election day, the observer responded, “Unusual? No. Nothing unusual. This is Belarus. There has been nothing unusual for 25 years.”
Mongolia: The OSCE’s Newest Participating StateTuesday, December 17, 2019
Mongolia became an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) participating State in 2012, the most recent country to freely undertake all OSCE commitments. Previously, Mongolia—like Australia, several countries in Asia, and a number of Mediterranean nations— had been an OSCE Partner for Cooperation, states in formal dialogue with the OSCE, though not taking on OSCE commitments. This transition—from partner to full-fledged participant—is the first time such a transition had been made, and marks the first ever enlargement of the OSCE region. It signaled the strong commitment of Mongolia to the values articulated in the Helsinki Final Act. Recently, Helsinki Commission staff visited Mongolia to meet with interlocutors in government, civil society, and the private sector. The delegation found entrepreneurial partners committed to democratic values and fundamental freedoms. This was particularly impressive given that the country is located between Russia and China—large authoritarian powers known for their use of economic and other forms of coercion to achieve foreign policy goals. However, Mongolia also faces emerging challenges regarding public corruption and the rule of law. While Mongolia remains the sole strong democracy in the region, recent developments and trends may threaten its democratic achievements and its potential to be a model for other nations in the region. The OSCE is based on an idea of comprehensive security: the concept that military security, economic security, and human security must all be considered when engaging in international relations. Mongolia can be analyzed through a similar lens, with its military situation, economic situation and human rights situation all informing policy toward the country. First Dimension: Political-Military Affairs Mongolia is in the quintessential bad neighborhood. No two countries have acted as aggressively toward their neighbors Russia and China. Russia currently is in violation of all ten Helsinki principles as a result of its occupation of Crimea and continuing destabilization of Eastern Ukraine. Luckily, neither of Mongolia’s neighbors has yet opted to invade the country. Historically, Russia has acted as guarantor of Mongolia’s sovereignty against China, the much more likely candidate of the two to pose an immediate security threat. However, recently Russia has increased its cooperation with China, as demonstrated by a recent Russia-China joint military exercise. While Mongolia continues to purchase arms from Russia, this new trend of Russian-Chinese cooperation poses the most important threat to Mongolian security. Already, Mongolia has been pressured to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a China-centric political alliance—to which Russia also belongs—based on authoritarianism and dedicated to the eradication of the so-called three evils of terrorism, extremism, and separatism. However, there are also reasons to doubt the future of Russia-China cooperation. Mongolian national security experts seem certain that the scope of cooperation has a low ceiling and that much of the collaboration—like the recent military exercise—is just for show. These experts argue that Russia has no desire to subordinate itself to Chinese interests in the long-term, which it would be required to do to enhance cooperation; China is the much stronger partner. Second Dimension: Economic & Environmental Issues While a military invasion of Mongolia by China remains unlikely, China has found other ways to exert its influence in the country, largely through economic coercion. China’s economic weight and importance as a market for Mongolia—a commodity-based economy heavily reliant on its much larger neighbor—means that China can dictate terms on contracts and agreements. It can also leverage this economic power for political purposes as it famously did when it closed a key China-Mongolia border crossing for truckers after the Dalai Lama visited Ulaanbaatar. As a result, Mongolian policymakers have begun to search for new markets, products, and opportunities that could diversify their economy. One key product is cashmere. Currently, most cashmere exports to the United States originate from China, which, thanks to its enormous market, largely determines the global price of cashmere. This enables China to purchase Mongolian cashmere cheaply and prevent it from posing a challenge to the Chinese cashmere industry. The Mongolia Third Neighbor Trade Act (H.R. 2219 and S. 1188) currently being considered by the U.S. Congress would remove U.S. tariffs on Mongolian cashmere goods and increase the demand for raw cashmere within Mongolia, empowering domestic producers and eroding China’s quasi-monopolistic control of the market. In doing so, the Third Neighbor Trade Act would help to diversify Mongolia’s economy and make it more resilient against its large, aggressive neighbor to the south. It would also serve to empower women in the country, who are employed disproportionately to men in cashmere factories. However, sustainability remains a problem. The goats from which cashmere is derived feed on grass in a destructive way, pulling out root and stem. This can lead to the desertification of the environment. As demand for cashmere increases and nomads enhance their herds with additional goats, one can expect this tragedy of the commons to become worse. Though producers of cashmere goods within Mongolia have attempted to build sustainability into their business models, the U.S. Congress may wish to consider this aspect of the business to prevent any unintended environmental consequences of increased demand for Mongolian cashmere. Corruption Mongolia is currently struggling to address an ongoing public corruption problem, in part through the Independent Agency Against Corruption, an independent investigative law enforcement agency designed to fight graft. Still, reporting shows that bribery and abuse of public office remain a problem in the country and one that should be of concern as an OSCE participating State. Mongolia was recently added to the grey list kept by the Financial Action Taskforce (FATF). The FATF is the premier international governing, rulemaking, and peer evaluation body for financial conduct. Its most potent tool is the FATF black list, which identifies countries that do not comply with its list of international financial standards designed to prevent threat financing and money laundering. The price of landing on this black list is immense—banks will not do business with blacklisted countries, or entities located within them, leading to enormous losses in potential revenue. The grey list serves as the warning list prior to inclusion on the black list. Though grand corruption may have gotten in the way of completing the necessary reforms to avoid a designation on the FATF grey list, in Mongolia’s case, it appears that the problem may be primarily one of capacity. Mongolia has never had to establish the anti-money laundering framework of a more developed country and lacks the training and expertise to bring itself in compliance. The U.S. Department of the Treasury is already providing assistance to Mongolia to build robust anti-money laundering systems that will get it off the grey list. An OSCE field mission could also assist with these and other capacity problems; however, all participating States must agree to allow Mongolia to host such a mission. Russia continues to block this move. Rule of Law While lack of capacity explains many of Mongolia’s compliance problems, signs indicate that certain powerful political players are seeking to roll back rule of law safeguards in the country. Recently, a law was passed enabling the National Security Council of Mongolia—a small body consisting of the President, the Prime Minister, and the Speaker—to dismiss judges due to claims of corruption. While the council argues that reform necessary to take down corrupt judges who would otherwise be defended by the patrons they serve, it is not hard to imagine how this power could abused. At least 17 judges have been dismissed in this fashion. The National Security Council claims that this power will no longer be necessary once they have completed reforms that should weed corruption out of the judiciary. This reform includes new bodies to both select and discipline judges. Third Dimension: Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues Media Consolidation Media consolidation is a growing problem for journalism in Mongolia. The major media outlets of the country are owned by a handful of individuals who use this ownership to further their political agendas. As a result, journalists are at risk of self-censorship or even pushed to promote stories that further the political narratives of the media tycoons. Media consolidation breeds a problematic information environment in Mongolia and contributes to a lack of opinion diversity. Closing Space for Civil Society Mongolia also seems threatened by the potential for the ruling elite to close the space for the operation of civil society. A draft law proposes creating a public fund that would serve as the exclusive funding source for all civil society operations. This would mean that civil society would be forced to comply with the conditions put on this fund or cease to exist. While this approach is not yet law, interlocutors warned that the next election will be one to watch and could lead to the consolidation of power should certain elements be victorious. Conclusion Mongolia is a country with great potential to contribute to the Helsinki Process if it is empowered to do so. By joining the organization in 2012, it proved that the OSCE could grow. Now, it seeks to demonstrate its leadership once again by receiving an OSCE field mission at a time when many of its neighbors are trying to close theirs—like Kazakhstan—or have successfully closed theirs—like Azerbaijan. With the right combination of ambition and caution, Mongolia could lead the way to a future of democracy in the steppe. However, there are warning signs that Mongolia could be heading in the wrong direction. The United States should do everything in its power to prevent this—both via diplomatic engagement and economic assistance. The clearest way for Congress to do this is through the passage of the Third Neighbor Trade Act. The OSCE too should focus its efforts on Mongolia as a far-flung state with immense potential. Mongolians could take up leadership positions in its institutions, potentially even serving as a Chair-in-Office in the near future. By becoming more visible in the organization itself, Mongolia can build its profile as a leader and the OSCE can take advantage of its expertise in preserving democracy in a hard neighborhood.
Albania's Leadership in EuropeWednesday, December 11, 2019
Each year, one participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is selected by the others to chair the 57-member organization. Since the role of OSCE “Chair-in-Office” was inaugurated in 1991, the organization has responded to numerous conflicts and crises in the Western Balkans. As the holder of the 2020 Chairmanship, Albania now seeks make its own contribution to security and cooperation in Europe as a whole. However, leading an organization that requires consensus-based decision-making is a difficult task, especially as the OSCE confronts significant security, economic, human rights, and democratic challenges including Russia’s aggression, ongoing regional conflicts, resistance to democratic reforms, and serious democratic backsliding in some OSCE countries. Taking place less than a week after the 2019 OSCE Ministerial in Bratislava, the culmination of the 2019 Slovak chairmanship, this Helsinki Commission briefing took a close look at Albania’s interest in chairing the OSCE and how that task may impact Albania in 2020. The panelists, each a member of Albania’s delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), provided a parliamentary perspective ahead of a hearing in early 2020 that will feature the Chair-in-Office and focus more specifically on the priorities and objectives of the Albanian chairmanship.
Helsinki Commission Briefing to Provide Parliamentary Perspective on Albania’s Upcoming OSCE ChairmanshipThursday, December 05, 2019
WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following staff-led briefing: ALBANIA’S LEADERSHIP IN EUROPE Parliamentary Perspectives of the Albanian OSCE Chairmanship in 2020 Wednesday, December 11, 2019 2:00 p.m. Rayburn House Office Building ROOM CHANGE: NOW ROOM 2200 Live Webcast: www.facebook.com/HelsinkiCommission Each year, one participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is selected by the others to chair the 57-member organization. Since the role of OSCE “Chair-in-Office” was inaugurated in 1991, the organization has responded to numerous conflicts and crises in the Western Balkans. As the holder of the 2020 Chairmanship, Albania now seeks make its own contribution to security and cooperation in Europe as a whole. However, leading an organization that requires consensus-based decision-making is a difficult task, especially as the OSCE confronts significant security, economic, human rights, and democratic challenges including Russia’s aggression, ongoing regional conflicts, resistance to democratic reforms, and serious democratic backsliding in some OSCE countries. Taking place less than a week after the 2019 OSCE Ministerial in Bratislava, the culmination of the 2019 Slovak chairmanship, this Helsinki Commission briefing will take a close look at Albania’s interest in chairing the OSCE and how that task may impact Albania in 2020. The panelists, each a member of Albania’s delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), will provide a parliamentary perspective ahead of a hearing in early 2020 that will feature the Chair-in-Office and focus more specifically on the priorities and objectives of the Albanian chairmanship. Panelists scheduled to participate include: Ditmir Bushati, Member of Parliament from the ruling Socialist Party; head of the Albanian Delegation to the OSCE PA Elona Hoxha Gjebrea, Member of Parliament from the ruling Socialist Party; member of the Albanian Delegation to the OSCE PA Rudina Hajdari, Member of Parliament from the opposition Democratic Party; member of the Albanian Delegation to the OSCE PA
Public Diplomacy, Democracy, and Global LeadershipThursday, December 05, 2019
For more than a century, the United States has advanced shared human rights, economic, and security policy goals in the transatlantic relationship by cultivating people-to-people ties through public diplomacy initiatives. As democracies around the world face new challenges emanating from demographic shifts, technological advancements, and evolving security threats, the need for public diplomacy initiatives that cultivate leaders who espouse democratic principles, including inclusive and representative governance, grows more relevant. The U.S. Helsinki Commission convened a hearing to focus on U.S.-led public diplomacy international exchange initiatives that strengthen democratic institutions by targeting young and diverse leaders, encouraging civic engagement, and fostering social inclusion and cohesion in the OSCE region. Presiding over the hearing, Chairman Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20) stated, “This year, under my leadership, the Helsinki Commission has held events on the importance of international election observation, good governance, and focused on democratic backsliding in particular countries as part of our continued commitment to the underlying principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Common to all of these issues is the role good leaders can play in ensuring free and fair elections; laws that are equitable, transparent, and enforced; and laying the groundwork to ensure protections and rights for all in their constituencies […] for the long-term stability of our nation and the transatlantic partnership.” In his opening remarks, Chairman Hastings also noted that he planned to introduce legislation to support of leadership exchanges and knowledge-building between diverse transatlantic policymakers, and to encourage representative democracies. He also announced a February program for young OSCE parliamentarians to strengthen their political inclusion and advance peace and security efforts. Chairman Hastings was joined by Commissioners Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05) and Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33). Rep. Veasey raised the importance of metrics in assessing the impact of leadership programs and soft diplomacy, while Rep. Cleaver stated, “For the first time since the end of World War II, the extreme right is actually winning seats in the German Parliament,” highlighting increased security risks related to public diplomacy programs operating in countries that have seen an increase in hate crimes and racial prejudice. Witnesses included Cordell Carter, II, Executive Director of the Socrates Program at the Aspen Institute; Stacie Walters Fujii, Chair of the American Council of Young Political Leaders; and Lora Berg, Counselor for Inclusive Leadership at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Carter reviewed the Aspen Institute’s public policy programming on transatlantic relations and discussed the importance of promoting democratic values, including efforts to strengthen the capacity of congressional staff and encourage dialogues around the United States on being an “inclusive republic.” He concluded by asking Congress to create more opportunities for public discourse on issues that threaten the stability of democracies around the world. Fujii discussed the importance of international exchanges in supporting democracies and the work of American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL). ACYPL was founded in 1966 to strengthen transatlantic relationships by promoting mutual understanding among young political leaders in Western Europe and the former Soviet Union. Critical aspects of the program include offering international leaders the opportunity to come to the U.S. to observe campaigning, polling stations, election returns, and the response of the American people to elections, complemented by follow-on educational conversations about democratic processes in their countries. Berg highlighted the importance of public diplomacy initiatives in advancing inclusive leadership and observed that nations gain in richness and capacity when diversity is reflected in leadership. She also noted that inclusive leadership not only plays an important role in promoting social harmony, but it also helps to ensure economic growth, stating that “the places with the highest social cohesion are the most reliable for investment.” Berg explained that the GMF’s Transatlantic Inclusion Leaders Network (TILN) grew out of work she engaged in while working for the Department of State. TILN is an innovative network of young, diverse leaders across the United States and Europe supported by the Helsinki Commission and State Department. Berg argued for the expansion of U.S. Government-supported public diplomacy inclusive leadership initiatives targeting youth and diverse populations in western democracies, including through public-private partnerships, the creation of a public diplomacy officer position in Europe to foster Europe-wide next generation transatlantic leadership, and increased political participation measures domestically and abroad for diverse populations.
Helsinki Commission to Review Role of Professional Exchanges in Strengthening Democratic InstitutionsMonday, December 02, 2019
WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following hearing: PUBLIC DIPLOMACY, DEMOCRACY, AND GLOBAL LEADERSHIP An Approach for the 21st Century Thursday, December 5, 2019 10:00 a.m. Longworth House Office Building Room 1334 Live Webcast: www.youtube.com/HelsinkiCommission For more than a century, the United States has advanced human rights, economic, and security policy goals in Europe by cultivating people-to-people ties across the Atlantic. More than 500 heads of state, 100 Members of Congress, and thousands of professionals have participated in U.S. Government-sponsored exchanges, including the State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program, while public and private organizations have hosted similar programs to bring leaders together. Witnesses at the hearing will explore the origins and role of professional exchanges and other public diplomacy programs that strengthen relationships with U.S. allies in the face of shared challenges including eroding trust in democratic institutions, demographic shifts, technological advancements, and evolving security threats. In particular, the hearing will focus on international exchange initiatives that strengthen democratic institutions by targeting young and diverse leaders, encouraging civic engagement, and fostering social inclusion and cohesion in the OSCE region. The following witnesses are scheduled to participate: Lora Berg, Senior Fellow, Leadership Programs, German Marshall Fund of the United States Cordell Carter, II, Executive Director, Socrates Program, The Aspen Institute Stacie Walters Fujii, Chair, American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) Photo credit: German Marshall Fund of the United States
The Importance of the Open Skies TreatyTuesday, November 19, 2019
The Trump administration reportedly is considering withdrawing the United States from the Open Skies Treaty, a key arms control agreement that has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. The treaty underpins security and stability in Europe by providing for unarmed aerial observation flights over its 34 signatories. The treaty allows even small countries greater awareness of military activities around them—more crucial than ever given the Kremlin’s demonstrated willingness to violate established borders. The principles of military transparency embodied by the treaty flow from the same fundamental commitments that led to the creation of today’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Open Skies Consultative Commission, which oversees implementation of the treaty, meets monthly at OSCE headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Witnesses at the hearing, organized jointly with the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy, and the Environment, explored the continued contributions of the Open Skies Treaty to the security of the United States, as well as its benefits to U.S. allies and partners. Witnesses also assessed Russia’s partial non-compliance with elements of the treaty and strategies to address this challenge, and evaluated the implications of a possible U.S. withdrawal on security and stability in Europe and Eurasia.
Dr. Terry Hopmann is one of few American academics who has followed the Helsinki Process as it developed over four decades from a multilateral conference of 35 countries dealing with Cold War divisions – the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe – to a regional organization of 57 countries confronting a broad range of challenges across its security, economic and human dimensions – today’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
As well-acquainted with the intricacies of its institutional development as the diplomats who negotiated them, Hopmann also considers the Helsinki Process and its importance in the context of the broader development of European affairs and the U.S.-Russian relationship. In his current capacity as Professor of International Relations and Conflict Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), based in Washington, DC, Hopmann not only introduces the OSCE to graduate students preparing for a career in international relations but also invites them to contribute to the intensive study of OSCE-related hot spots, including through field visits to areas such as Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Focusing especially on security issues, Dr. Hopmann frequently interacts with the Helsinki Commission, both at OSCE-organized meetings in Europe and at Commission-organized briefings and hearings in Washington. In light of the numerous challenges the OSCE currently faces, including Russia’s markedly aggressive behavior and fears of an eroding U.S. commitment to European security and cooperation, Helsinki Commission staff recently sought Hopmann out to discuss the utility of the Helsinki Process in the past, and the interplay of U.S., Russian and European interests through the OSCE today and into the future.
The OSCE’s Value
Hopmann asserts in no uncertain terms that “OSCE membership is very beneficial for the United States.” The organization has made major contributions to defusing conflicts and increasing military transparency, Hopmann believes; he also underlines the need to keep in mind the organization’s role in the defense of human rights.
“The OSCE’s defense of national sovereignty, minority rights, and other important socio-political freedoms, together help prevent or at least de-escalate conflict, and make escalation harder. We see this precise action with regards to Ukraine right now. There’s a lot of value in that,” he notes.
“The OSCE remains important for the U.S. in promoting its interests abroad, and at relatively low cost,” Hopmann adds. “Still, the OSCE needs more support. The United States has struggled to engage with multilateral organizations and this represents a major issue. Without permanent and knowledgeable diplomatic representation and without the guarantee of adequate funding and resources, the OSCE’s capacity to act is severely hindered, and we play a role in that. Furthermore, the fact that we do not have a permanent representative there at the moment devalues the OSCE in ways that are dangerous.”
Hopmann calls for the United States to continue to “support the OSCE institutions and missions, help its fellow member states in their work at the OSCE, and not forget its commitment to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, nor lose sight of their significance.”
In the past, the Helsinki Process made important contributions to stability and peace in Europe, Hopmann believes. The confidence-building measures developed through the Helsinki Process of the mid-1970s, in particular, “initiated the practice of international observation and greater transparency. As a result, states could now better distinguish military maneuvers and exercises from preparations for a surprise attack. In many ways this was the most important breakthrough during the Cold War, greatly reducing the risk for surprise attack from the Soviet Union. This anxiety was a root cause of the Cold War and animated the conduct of both Western and Eastern powers. Of course, there were the ideological arguments that influenced the political landscape, but in Europe, the fear of Soviet aggression was immense.” At the time these confidence-building measures were negotiated, the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was still a vivid, recent memory.
Hopmann also acknowledges the value of the other, non-military baskets of issues discussed in the Helsinki context.
“The human rights basket was also important, though not as immediate,” he observes. “For the negotiators, this basket was less about human rights, but more about the promotion of human interaction. It was, effectively, an agreement to begin encouraging cultural and educational exchange. In the shorter term, the first basket [on political-military issues] was critical, but in the longer term, the third basket [on human rights] became more important - particularly after the 1986 Stockholm agreement updated the CSBMs that were at the heart of Helsinki’s Basket 1. Then, following the Vienna Review Conference that concluded in early 1989, suddenly people were guaranteed the right to enter and leave their own country. Here, we see the first breach in the Iron Curtain when Hungary allowed people to cross freely into Austria – it didn’t all fall at once in 1989, rather it was a gradual process that started with a CSCE set of expanded principles. “
Hopmann considers the institutional development of the European security architecture in the post-Cold War period to have in many ways played out to the OSCE’s disadvantage. Although initially successful in the 1990s with the deployment of field missions, successive U.S. administrations have missed an opportunity by viewing the OSCE as an organization principally relating to human rights concerns, rather than political-military security.
“We missed the idea that NATO and the OSCE are not mutually exclusive,” he says “While we’ve contributed a lot to the OSCE, NATO remains the priority for policy makers in Washington. We have yet to realize how closely and effectively they can and should be working together. I believe this is our biggest foreign policy mistake since the end of the Cold War. It is the most effective way to bring Russia to the negotiating table and it is far easier to work with them in Vienna than the UN. The OSCE remains a security institution, like NATO, and as long as we value using all diplomatic measures to resolve conflict before using military force, we’re making a mistake by underutilizing the OSCE.”
A growing European Union has not necessarily helped, Hopmann believes.
“The development of the E.U. has somewhat complicated the operation of the OSCE. Through the creation of its own common foreign and security policy and other initiatives, Brussels has duplicated OSCE institutions, but without the participation of the United States and Russia. Thus, the E.U. alone simply isn’t as effective,” he observes. “There is a lot of overlap between the two bodies and this begets structural and bureaucratic blockages that prevent action, especially when E.U. and OSCE representatives diverge or try to do the same thing independently. So, like OSCE-NATO relations, the E.U.’s relationship with the OSCE is occasionally marked by competition that hurts both parties’ effectiveness.”
The View from Kremlin Walls
Many of the earlier successes of the Helsinki Process were enabled by a very different leadership in Moscow than that we see today, Hopmann suggests. Under the late-Soviet leadership and Russian President Yeltsin, “there was a real interest to engage more with the West. They were, generally speaking, in support of Helsinki and didn’t view it as a threat to Russian interests,” he says. “That strongly contrasts with Putin. Putin has a totally different worldview and perceives the OSCE’s interests as inimical to Russian national priorities. We now find a much stronger, more belligerent Russia that no longer trusts the OSCE to help protect its interests, as it once did.”
This dynamic creates a real danger that Russia could turn away from the OSCE completely. “The Kremlin could decide to leave as a result of domestic pressure or as a result of frustration with the West and its criticism. The Russians feel that they are attacked on all sides in the OSCE and obviously derive no joy from it,” Hopmann notes.
He therefore warns against outright rejection of all Russian concerns in the OSCE area, for instance as regards ensuring the protection of Russian-speaking populations in neighboring states.
“It is paramount that, in the spirit of Helsinki, we ensure Russian minorities are treated equally and fairly, to avoid perceived provocations by the West that might serve as a pretext for Russia to intervene. He suggests the closure of earlier OSCE missions in the Baltic states might have been perceived by Moscow, rightly or wrongly, as evidence that the OSCE was no longer responding to Russian concerns.
Russia’s military occupation and subsequent illegal annexation of Crimea might have been averted, Hopmann asserts, had its view of the OSCE not evolved so dramatically from the first post-Cold War decade to the second. While objecting to Kosovo’s bid for statehood based on core OSCE commitments regarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, even a decade ago Moscow was willing to engage diplomatically to resolve the issue. In the case of Crimea in 2014, it was not.
“They prioritized military force over diplomacy – the precise kind of behavior the OSCE was designed to discourage,” Hopmann states. He predicts that “while this decision may have been tactically effective, it will hurt Russia in the long run. The OSCE is designed to deal with these situations and it has the institutional framework to do so effectively – Russia failed to take advantage of the OSCE and we’re all now paying the price.”
Still, Moscow recognizes that the OSCE is still valuable to Russian interests, according to Hopmann: “Russia wields a lot of influence in the OSCE because of their effective veto power under the consensus rule – indeed, the Kremlin recognizes the sway it carries in it and recognizes the OSCE as the place where it can effectively and discreetly negotiate with both the U.S. and the E.U. Ultimately, the OSCE is designed precisely to facilitate this kind of diplomatic interaction, and it meshes more closely with Putin’s view of how diplomacy should be conducted than the U.N. I believe it is for this reason that the Russians have been willing to work with the OSCE on some issues, including the conflict in Ukraine.”
Effectively engaging Russia at the OSCE will remain a challenge, Hopmann adds, suggesting that a multilateral format may be useful.
“The most important question we face is how to continue the discussion and being firm with Russia when it blatantly violates OSCE norms as it did in Ukraine, without going overboard with our criticisms,” he says. “There are some countries, like Austria, Finland and Switzerland that are simply better at dealing with Russia, due to their past or current neutrality. Russia prefers to deal through them and likely finds it easier to appear to cooperate with them than working directly with the U.S.”
On the OSCE’s Role in Conflicts
The OSCE is demonstrating clear added-value in conflict areas today, according to Hopmann, including in and around Ukraine, and as regards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Hopmann praised the OSCE as having “played a key role in ensuring the [Ukraine] conflict does not escalate and cause more destruction. Indeed, within the limits of its mandate and available resource, the OSCE has done admirable work; however, this scope is limited and much remains to be done. Thus, the best thing the U.S. can do is to continue to support the OSCE’s mission and the Minsk process. It’s not ideal, but there’s no better option.”
Frustration over the OSCE’s inability to overcome the absence of political will to prevent or stop the conflict altogether should not overshadow its success in ascertaining the facts on the ground and galvanizing a defense of key principles guiding international behavior, he believes.
Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, Hopmann suggests that the OSCE has moderated what could otherwise be a much more intense conflict.
“The presence of the OSCE has helped already,” he says. “Its presence helped diffuse the four day war last year and prevented it from becoming a more violent conflict. Still, there is significant risk that the conflict will escalate and this highlights the importance of OSCE and the role it may play in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh question.”
Hopmann believes that an alignment of U.S.-Russian interests in Nagorno-Karabakh, even if partial, may be helpful here. “The OSCE absolutely has the mandate and ability to negotiate such a deal and to organize peace-keeping initiatives to ensure the conflict does not start up again. That being said, this process will be long, complicated, and expensive,” he predicts.
Hopmann concedes that the OSCE will remain beset for the foreseeable future with challenges largely emanating from the consensus-based decision-making process, over which any one country (including Russia) effectively has a veto.
However, he remains convinced that “that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue dialogue. In fact, we must continue dialogue. Many people remain committed to the OSCE and its values, including some Russian diplomats – though they’re keeping a low profile at the moment. This bodes well not only for change in the OSCE, but also for Russia. Change is not impossible, and keeping the dialogue channels open is of incredible importance. Without them, when the chance to encourage positive change does appear, we will not be able to capitalize on it. We worked together immediately after the Cold War to diffuse East-West tensions and ensure a peaceful Europe. There is no reason we cannot do that again.”
Professor Hopmann was interviewed by Bob Hand and Alex Tiersky, Helsinki Commission Staff.
Dr. Hopmann’s academic focus on the OSCE started in 1974, while he was a professor at the University of Minnesota on sabbatical with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Geneva, Switzerland.
Although his initial focus was on other international disarmament efforts, he was swept up in the work of what has been called the “stage two” of the original negotiations of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that was being conducted in Geneva at the time.
“I interviewed many of the negotiators from most of the participating States and completed a project on the drafting process specifically on the “Decalogue” (10 Principles Guiding Relation Between States) and the security basket,” he says. “Academically, I had been focusing on NATO-Warsaw Pact relations in times of conflict and of détente, and how they reconciled security and cooperation.”
Now teaching a generation of students not born during the Cold War, Hopmann said it is hard sometimes to communicate “the level of anxiety and imminent threat that we perceived” living during the height of the confrontation. And when conveying the relevance today of the work of the OSCE, he views simplistic comparisons between the Putin regime and its Soviet predecessors as unhelpful.
Putin “is far more in line with tsarist conceptions of Russia and imperium,” he observes, adopting the realpolitik view of 19th century international politics rather than the sense of ideological and class struggle that predominated in the 20th century.
Hopmann often visits Vienna, Austria, where the OSCE Permanent Council meets, and is a regular contributor and member of the editorial board to the OSCE Yearbook published by the Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik (Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy) at the University of Hamburg in Germany. He has also served as a public member of the U.S. Delegations to the OSCE Review Conference that preceded the November 1999 OSCE Summit in Istanbul, Turkey.