Name

International Organizations

The OSCE maintains close relations with several international organizations active in regional security, including the United Nations (UN), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), and the Council of Europe (CoE).

As the OSCE recognizes that the United Nations Security Council bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the UN is one of OSCE's closest partners. In 1992, the OSCE participating States declared the OSCE to be "a regional arrangement in the sense of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations" and in 1993, the United Nations Secretariat and the OSCE agreed on a framework for cooperation and coordination. The UN granted the OSCE observer status the same year.

Relations between the OSCE and NATO have been crucial in developing the security architecture of post-Cold War Europe. Since the beginning of the Helsinki process, NATO has significantly contributed to the debate within the OSCE on developing an OSCE security model, and NATO's important role in promoting security in Europe is emphasized in a number of OSCE documents, such as the 2003 OSCE Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the Twenty-First Century.

Since the beginning of the Helsinki process, the EU and its Member States have played a vital role in the work of the OSCE, and all EU Member States are at the same time participating States of the OSCE. Over the years, the scope of cooperation between the OSCE and the EU has both broadened and deepened following development of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy and the launch of the first EU crisis management operations.

The OSCE and the CoE have a well-established and long-standing relationship, based on their shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. CoE legal instruments are complemented by the OSCE’s norm-setting political commitments, institutions and strong field presence.

  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • Could U.S. Law Help Punish Russians for Doping Scheme?

    WASHINGTON — In recent months, the United States has punished the following people for alleged human rights violations and corruption: A former Gambian president who led terror and assassination squads. A Chechen leader involved in torture, kidnapping and murder. A Pakistani man at the center of a human-organ trafficking network. And a former Russian sports minister who was implicated in a nation’s systematic doping scheme that tainted several Olympics and other international competitions? Well, not the last person — at least not yet. The United States Anti-Doping Agency is exploring the use of government sanctions to punish Russian officials involved in the state-supported doping program that turned the 2014 Sochi Games into a sham. On Tuesday, Travis Tygart, the chief executive of the agency, attended a workshop here sponsored by the U.S. Helsinki Commission to see if the Global Magnitsky Act, a 2016 law that allows the sanctions, could apply to the Russians. The law calls for individuals who have committed human rights violations or significant corruption to be barred from obtaining United States visas and blocked from using the American financial system, which effectively blacklists them from doing business with major world banks. Powerful, wealthy people don’t like to have their assets frozen. “What happened in Sochi was the worst case of corruption that we’ve ever seen in sport, so why shouldn’t the act apply to us?” Tygart said. “We have to look down every avenue if we’re working for clean athletes, particularly in light of the I.O.C.’s failure do anything.” Tygart said American athletes have been demanding that the antidoping agency find ways to better protect clean athletes in the future so the Russian doping debacle is never repeated. The International Olympic Committee punished Russia, sort of, for its widespread doping. It barred the Russian Olympic Committee, the Russian flag and the Russian national anthem from last month’s Pyeongchang Games, while letting some Russian athletes compete under a neutral flag. It also barred for life one top Russian official: Vitaly Mutko. (He was implicated in the doping program as the Russian sports minister. After the scheme was exposed, he was promoted to deputy prime minister.) Three days after the Pyeongchang Games ended, the I.O.C. reinstated Russia’s Olympic committee — even though two Russian athletes had failed drug tests during the competition. So the United States antidoping group is looking for additional ways to punish the Russians. The Global Magnitsky Act is in its infancy and the sports angle might be a long-shot, but why not try? Besides, the United States government often has to do the dirty work for sports leagues and federations that refuse to police themselves. To take down the principles and athletes involved in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroids scandal that ensnared athletes like Barry Bonds and Marion Jones, law enforcement made arrests and prosecutors took it from there. To address the widespread doping problem in Major League Baseball, Congress had to drag players and management in to testify. To uncover corruption in FIFA, United States prosecutors took the lead and indicted more than two dozen officials and businessmen from all over the world — much to the dismay of soccer’s global establishment. And now it could be the Global Magnitsky Act that delivers a staggering blow to the Russians for corrupting the results of major global sports competitions — including, but certainly not limited to, the Olympics. Among the people who could be targeted for sanctions are Mutko; Yuri D. Nagornykh, the former deputy sports minister; Irina Rodionova, the former deputy director of the Center for Sports Preparation; and others mentioned in an affidavit by Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, Russia’s former longtime antidoping laboratory chief who blew the whistle on the whole operation. Does such sports corruption rise to the level covered by the law? William F. Browder thinks so. He’s a prominent investor who worked with Congress on the original Magnitsky Act, which was passed in 2012 in response to the death of Browder’s Russian lawyer, Sergei L. Magnitsky. The lawyer had uncovered a $230 million tax-theft scheme before he was arrested and died in prison. “There’s one important issue and that’s the doping scandal at the Sochi Games led to what I believe were murders,” Browder said, referring to two officials from Russia’s antidoping agency who died within two weeks of each other in 2016. “There were a number of people involved who died very suspiciously who were most likely liquidated to cover up a crime.” He added: “There were people who effectively ruined institution of sport and have committed crimes to do so. That would reach the standard of Global Magnitsky, in my opinion. These people involved in sports doping, they’re shameless. So there needs to be really hard consequences. They need to pay a very dear price.” That price would be losing access to their money and the freedom to move about the world. And they would be on a list with some of the world’s worst criminals. “If the Olympic Games are unquestionably tainted, that has huge economic ramifications for not just U.S. athletes, but for U.S. industry, and the U.S. government has an interest in making sure that doesn’t happen,” said Robert G. Berschinski, senior vice president for policy at Human Rights First and a former deputy assistant secretary of state. I asked him if he thought the individuals involved in the Russian doping case could be sanctioned under the law. “Without getting into specifics,” he said, “it seems that you can make a case.” Tygart thinks so, too. He left the workshop on Tuesday thinking that sanctions were a last resort but “a viable option.” Is it truly a viable option, and will the antidoping agency act on it? A certain group of Russians might not be eager to learn the answers.

  • Attorney for Russian ‘Icarus’ Whistleblower Blasts Olympic Anti-Doping Effort

    WASHINGTON—The attorney for the Russian whistleblower featured in Bryan Fogel’s Oscar-nominated movie “Icarus” is blasting the International Olympic Committee for not taking harsher measures against Russia for the state-sanctioned use of performance enhancing drugs by its athletes. Jim Walden, the attorney for Grigory Rodchenkov, who is at the center of “Icarus,” spoke to the Helsinki Commission on Capitol Hill and said the IOC’s ban on Russian participation in the recent Winter Olympics was “hardly a slap on the wrist.” “In reality, it was a PR stunt—a sham,” he said last week. “After all, Russia has now fielded one of its largest teams at the ongoing Olympics in Pyeongchang. They are permitted to compete not as neutral athletes but in uniforms bearing Russia’s name.” Rodchenkov served as the director of the Moscow Anti-Doping Center, tasked with ensuring compliance with the World Anti-Doping Agency. In fact, he was “ordered by his Kremlin bosses” to assist in “an elaborate system to allow Russia’s athletes to cheat in international competitions, including the Olympics,” Walden said. In the movie, Rodchenkov works with Fogel on his effort to use performance enhancing drugs as a way to show how Lance Armstrong evaded detection for so long. But, as “Icarus” unfolds, Rodchenkov becomes the center of the anti-doping scandal. Rodchenkov is now in hiding in the United States, given the threats from Russia, which has denied the claims. “Russian officials have harassed his family, confiscated his property, and even declared that he should be ‘shot as Stalin would have done,'” Walden said in his testimony. “To discredit Dr. Rodchenkov, even Russian President Vladimir Putin has gotten in the game, accusing the FBI of ‘drugging’ Dr. Rodchenkov to elicit false testimony while, at the same time, calling Dr. Rodchenkov an ‘imbecile’ and ‘mentally unstable.'” Rodchenkov was sued for defamation last week in New York by a group of Russian athletes, in a lawsuit that is being backed by Mikhail D. Prokhorov, who owns the Brooklyn Nets, the New York Times reported. “The IOC has stood by and watched this abhorrent conduct against its main witness without taking any action at all,” Walden said in his appearance before the commission. “Did this embolden Russia? You tell me. Russia reacted by also retaliating directly against the IOC and WADA. They hacked the IOC’s and WADA’s computers, disclosed confidential documents, and even threatened to bring sanctions against IOC members and WADA executives.” He continued, “No one can seriously argue that this cowardly and ineffective response by the IOC is appropriate, will deter future cheating, or is fair to clean athletes, Olympic sponsors, or fans. No one can seriously argue that the IOC’s self-policing system works at all.” Walden called on Congress to pass legislation to add criminal penalties for doping. He said a statute could be similar to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which sanctions foreign government officials for actions that impact U.S. businesses. The commission is an independent agency that includes members of the House and the Senate, and it monitors human rights and international cooperation in Europe. A spokesman for the IOC did not return a request for comment.

  • The Russian Doping Scandal

    In 2016, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov blew the whistle on Russia’s state-run doping program, revealing a deep web of deception and fraud that he had once helped facilitate. This revelation led to the total ban of Russia from the 2018 Winter Olympics and intensified the debate over corruption in sports. After fleeing Russia for fear of retaliation, Dr. Rodchenkov now lives a precarious life in the United States, relying on whistleblower protections and fearful that Russian agents may one day come knocking. This briefing featured Dr. Rodchenkov’s attorney, Jim Walden, for a conversation on combating fraud in sports and the role of whistleblowers in safeguarding the integrity of international competitions. It also included a discussion of Oscar-winning documentary Icarus, which chronicles Dr. Rodchenkov’s journey from complicit head of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory to courageous whistleblower. During the briefing, Mr. Walden described the elaborate system Dr. Rodchenkov led to bypass doping testing. He further went on to detail the punishments levied on the Russian government by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).  He said that the IOC has insufficiently punished Russia for its state-sponsored doping program by not fully banning Russia from the 2018 Winter Olympic Games in Pyeonchang. In addition, most of the 43 “lifetime” bans of doped Russian athletes have been overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Furthermore, Russia has not accepted responsibility and instead seeks to retaliate against Dr. Rodchenkov. For example, Russian officials have harassed Dr. Rodchenkov’s family, confiscated his property and launched an information campaign to discredit him. In addition, three of the guilty Russian athletes have sued Dr. Rodchenkov in New York State Supreme Court for defamation.  The Russian government has even retaliated against the IOC and World Anti-Doping agency (WADA) by hacking the IOC’s and WADA’s computers, disclosing confidential documents, and even threatening  to bring sanctions against IOC Members and WADA executives. Mr. Walden closed his statement with a legislative solution to combat Russian doping. He proposed creating a doping “long-arm statute” similar to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or amending the Controlled Substances Act  to give the U.S. power to persecute foreign officials and athletes that engage in doping and provide whistleblower protection. In response to a question from Helsinki Commission Policy Advisor Paul Massaro about the IOC’s response to the incident, Mr. Walden said that the IOC’s reaction was ineffective due to corruption, complicity, or ineptitude. When asked about the motivations behind Russia’s doping program, Mr. Walden noted that the doping program is unique to Russia because of the impact on sport in Russian society and added that the success of the Sochi Olympics greatly boosted Vladimir Putin’s approval ratings.

  • Russian Doping and Fraud to Be Probed at Helsinki Commission Briefing

    WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following briefing: THE RUSSIAN DOPING SCANDAL: PROTECTING WHISTLEBLOWERS AND COMBATING FRAUD IN SPORTS Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:30 p.m. Capitol Visitor Center Room SVC 203 Live Webcast: www.facebook.com/HelsinkiCommission In 2016, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov blew the whistle on Russia’s state-run doping program, revealing a deep web of deception and fraud that he had once helped facilitate. This revelation led to the total ban of Russia from the 2018 Winter Olympics and intensified the debate over corruption in sports. After fleeing Russia for fear of retaliation, Dr. Rodchenkov now lives a precarious life in the United States, relying on whistleblower protections and fearful that Russian agents may one day come knocking. This briefing features Dr. Rodchenkov’s attorney, Jim Walden, for a conversation on combating fraud in sports and the role of whistleblowers in safeguarding the integrity of international competitions. It will also include a discussion of the Oscar-nominated documentary Icarus, which chronicles Dr. Rodchenkov’s journey from complicit head of Russia’s anti-doping laboratory to courageous whistleblower.

  • Brexit: Parliamentary Perspectives

    On June 23, 2016, a majority of British citizens voted to leave the European Union (EU), in the so-called BREXIT referendum. Beyond its direct impact on both the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU), BREXIT has numerous implications for the entire OSCE region. Recent events in the U.S. Congress and European Parliament suggest that parliamentarians believe the impact could range from a weakened EU stance on human rights, to a stronger transatlantic alliance on economic matters, to little or no change in current U.S., EU, and OSCE security relationships.  Over the past few weeks, British Members of Parliament (MPs) have begun to engage in the arduous task of considering legislation to disentangle the UK from the EU.  What the Legislation Does The legislation, called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, would repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which brought the UK into the EU.  Adoption of the withdrawal bill would allow EU law to be transposed into UK law to ensure continued consistency with EU rules and regulations on matters ranging from trade to workers’ rights following BREXIT. In addition, the bill would also empower Ministers and other government officials to make changes to UK law without the approval of Parliament in special cases, with the goal of streamlining bureaucratic processes.  Ideally, the bill would be adopted before March 2019 when the UK is scheduled to leave the EU. Challenges However, numerous complications surround passage of the bill.  First, parliamentarians are considering the bill even though a deal has yet to be finalized for the UK to leave the EU.  Talks between the UK and the EU set for December continue to focus on how much the UK is obligated to pay the EU upon departure; the new legal status  of EU citizens currently living and working in the UK, and vice versa; and trade and regulatory borders, in particular with Northern Ireland.  Currently, it appears that  border concerns with Ireland may have been resolved, costs may amount to close to 40 billion pounds, rights for EU and UK citizens will be preserved, and that the UK will also continue to be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice… all of which should be officially determined during talks next week. Other issues also impact passage of the bill.  Parliamentarians are currently legislating without “BREXIT impact assessments” – information they say they need to forecast how BREXIT may impact a variety of sectors from industrial to finance.  Some MPs object to the legislation because empowering Ministers to make changes without the approval of Parliament could circumvent the standard checks-and-balances process, leading to weak legislation.  Other MPs want to ensure European Court of Justice and some other rules will still apply to the UK during the years it is expected it may take to transpose and/or write new laws to take the place of +20,000 EU laws, regulations, and other legal instruments that would otherwise cease to exist following BREXIT.  While many of these issues remain in question until a final agreement can be reached, ultimately UK MPs have the final vote on the UK’s withdrawal from EU.  As such, parliamentary perspectives on BREXIT continue to be front and center.  Recent BREXIT-Related Events in the U.S. Congress and European Parliament Parliamentarians and Commissioners Discuss Europe’s Changing Landscape and BREXIT Brexit: A Negotiation Update End of a fruitful dialogue? Impact of Brexit on Equality and anti-discrimination in the EU & UK Impact of Brexit on Equality and Anti-Discrimination in the EU & UK

  • The International Tribunal and Beyond: Pursuing Justice for Atrocities in the Western Balkans

    Between 1991 and 2001 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, made up of six republics, was broken apart by a series of brutal armed conflicts. The conflicts were characterized by widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law, among them mass killings of civilians, the massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, torture, and practices of ethnic cleansing, including forced displacement. In 1992 the U.N. established a Commission of Experts that documented the horrific crimes on the ground and led to the 1993 creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This month, after more than two decades of persistent, ground-breaking efforts to prosecute the individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY is concluding its work. As it prepares to close its doors, this briefing will assess the tribunal’s achievements and limitations, and most importantly, what still needs to be done by the countries of the region to seek justice in outstanding cases, bring greater closure to victims, and foster greater reconciliation among peoples. Panelists discussed these questions and suggested ways that the United States, Europe, and the international community as a whole can encourage the further pursuit of justice in the Western Balkans.

  • Sea Rescues: Saving Refugees and Migrants on the Mediterranean

    Ships on the Mediterranean Sea have rescued 117,000 refugees and migrants bound for Europe so far in 2017, and many more since the crisis first reached the continent in 2015. In the past two years, almost 12,000 refugees and migrants have died or gone missing. Many of the sea rescues have been conducted by coast guard and naval ships from frontline European countries; the European Union’s Border and Coast Guard Agency, also known as Frontex; and EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia. Merchant ships have also played an important role in sea rescues of migrants and refugees on the Mediterranean. According to the International Chamber of Shipping, merchant ships have rescued more than 41,300 of them since 2015. This briefing examined how rescue operations work; what ships are obligated to do when they become aware of a vessel in distress; issues of human trafficking and smuggling; how well governments, shipping companies, and international organizations coordinate and collaborate with each other on sea rescues; major challenges that currently exist for navies, coast guards, and merchant ships involved in rescue operations; and recommendations to address these challenges.

  • Helsinki Commission, Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Announce Briefing on Justice in Western Balkans and Closing of International Tribunal

    WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) today announced the following briefing: THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL AND BEYOND: PURSUING JUSTICE FOR ATROCITIES IN THE WESTERN BALKANS Tuesday, December 12, 2017 10:00 AM - 11:30 PM Rayburn House Office Building Room 2255 Live Webcast: www.facebook.com/HelsinkiCommission Between 1991 and 2001 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, made up of six republics, was broken apart by a series of brutal armed conflicts. The conflicts were characterized by widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law, among them mass killings of civilians, the massive, organized and systematic detention and rape of women, torture, and practices of ethnic cleansing, including forced displacement. In 1992 the U.N. established a Commission of Experts that documented the horrific crimes on the ground and led to the 1993 creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). This month, after more than two decades of persistent, ground-breaking efforts to prosecute the individuals responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the ICTY is concluding its work. As it prepares to close its doors, this briefing will assess the tribunal’s achievements and limitations, and most importantly, what still needs to be done by the countries of the region to seek justice in outstanding cases, bring greater closure to victims, and foster greater reconciliation among peoples. Panelists will discuss these questions and suggest ways that the United States, Europe, and the international community as a whole can encourage the further pursuit of justice in the Western Balkans.  Panelists: Serge Brammertz, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Nemanja Stjepanovic, Member of the Executive Board, Humanitarian Law Center (from Belgrade, Serbia, live via video) Diane Orentlicher, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University Additional panelists may be added.  

  • Rescuing Refugees and Migrants on the Mediterranean Topic of Upcoming Helsinki Commission Briefing

    WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following briefing: SEA RESCUES: SAVING REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS ON THE MEDITERRANEAN Tuesday, December 12, 2017 2:30PM Russell Senate Office Building Room 188 Live Webcast: www.facebook.com/HelsinkiCommission Ships on the Mediterranean Sea have rescued 117,000 refugees and migrants bound for Europe so far in 2017, and many more since the crisis first reached the continent in 2015. In the past two years, almost 12,000 refugees and migrants have died or gone missing. Many of the sea rescues have been conducted by coast guard and naval ships from frontline European countries; the European Union’s Border and Coast Guard Agency, also known as Frontex; and EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia. Merchant ships have also played an important role in sea rescues of migrants and refugees on the Mediterranean. According to the International Chamber of Shipping, merchant ships have rescued more than 41,300 of them since 2015. This briefing will examine how rescue operations work; what ships are obligated to do when they become aware of a vessel in distress; issues of human trafficking and smuggling; how well governments, shipping companies, and international organizations coordinate and collaborate with each other on sea rescues; major challenges that currently exist for navies, coast guards, and merchant ships involved in rescue operations; and recommendations to address these challenges. The following panelists will offer brief remarks, followed by questions: Catherine Flumiani, Minister Counselor, Embassy of Italy to the U.S. Michalis Stamatis, First Secretary and Consul, Embassy of Greece to the U.S. Ludwig Blaurock, Political and Military Counsellor, European Union Delegation to the U.S. Laura Thompson, Deputy Director General, International Organization for Migration John Murray, Marine Director, International Chamber of Shipping

  • Chairman Wicker Meets with Valentin Inzko, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina

    On May 16, Austrian diplomat Valentin Inzko, the international community’s High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina since 2009, met with Senator Roger F. Wicker, Chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission.  Dr. Inzko was visiting Washington for consultations with the U.S. Administration and Members of Congress, prior to reporting to the United Nations Security Council on his work later in the week. The High Representative updated the Senator on the ongoing challenges in implementation of the 1995 Dayton Agreement, which ended a horrific conflict that began in Bosnia in April 1992.   He indicated that nationalist sentiment continues to divide the country.   As a result, efforts to achieve the country’s disintegration take place simultaneous to efforts to achieve the country’s integration into Europe.  Inzko urged that the United States continue to actively engage in Bosnia and Herzegovina, noting U.S. credibility among local stakeholders and the European Union’s challenges in achieving any real progress on its own.  Senator Wicker recalled the major U.S. commitment to Bosnia in the immediate post-Dayton period and asked what policy options are available today.   Among the items discussed were the need to maintain active U.S. diplomatic representation in Bosnia, as well as the potential impact of sanctions or other actions against obstructionist political leaders.  In January, the United States applied sanctions on Milorad Dodik, President of the Republika Srpska entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for obstructing Dayton implementation, thereby threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. At a Commission hearing the next day on Russia's military threat to Europe, similar concerns were raised as expert witnesses indicated the Western Balkans were in “Russian crosshairs” to influence and destabilize. Russian influence is most visible in Serbia but also in Macedonia and Bosnia. It is particularly strong in the Republika Srpska entity, encouraging Dodik to pursue a secessionist agenda. Russian involvement in the attempted coup in Montenegro last October was also noted, just as the country was in the process of acceding to NATO. Through successive leaderships, the U.S. Helsinki Commission has been at the forefront of congressional efforts to support Bosnia and Herzegovina, not only in line with the terms of the 1995 Dayton Agreement but in compliance with the principles and provisions of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and subsequent commitments of the OSCE.

  • Chairman Wicker Welcomes Accession of Montenegro to NATO

    WASHINGTON–Following U.S. Senate approval of the accession of Montenegro to the NATO Alliance, Senator Roger Wicker (MS), Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, issued the following statement: “I am pleased by the Senate’s decision to welcome Montenegro into NATO. At a time of unease in Europe, this small nation and its people are making important contributions to security and stability. By joining the Alliance, Montenegro also confirms the continued validity of the Helsinki Final Act, which affirms the right of countries to determine their own security arrangements and alliances.  Allowing outside actors to call this principle into question would have severely undercut European security.”   Last week, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, U.S. Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that it is “absolutely critical” that Montenegro be brought into NATO.  Chairman Wicker serves as a senior member of the committee and took part in the hearing. The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission, has supported human rights and democratic development in Montenegro since observing the first multi-party elections in the country in 1990.  Further, the Commission has been deeply involved in policy debates over NATO, including conducting hearings on previous additions to the alliance.

  • Baltic War Game Scenario Plays Out at Helsinki Commission

    On March 3, 2017, U.S. Helsinki Commission staff, joined by Congressional staff from various offices, took part in an interactive, informal simulation led by the RAND Corporation, which demonstrated RAND’s research on the shape and probable outcome of a near-term hypothetical Russian invasion of the Baltic states. The meeting followed the Commission’s December 2016 briefing, Baltic Security After the Warsaw NATO Summit, where RAND expert Michael Johnson presented the research and war-game approach exploring how a hypothetical Russian invasion of the Baltics would actually play out tactically. During the event, Johnson and his team not only described their research but also demonstrated the advantages of the flexible platform of physical simulation in such a context. Attendees were able to “play out” military deployments on both sides of the board, representing both Russian and NATO forces. Using a physical model – as opposed to a digital platform – allowed attendees to pose hypothetical scenario-based questions to one another and to the RAND team, and to explore the defense outcomes on a representative military theater. The RAND simulation demonstrated that, under current NATO postures, Russian forces would be likely to be able to take the capitals of all three Baltic States in 60 hours or less. More information on the war-gaming research by Michael W. Johnson and David A. Shlapak can be found in their report, Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO’s Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics (2016).

  • The Helsinki Process: A Four Decade Overview

    In August 1975, the heads of state or government of 35 countries – the Soviet Union and all of Europe except Albania, plus the United States and Canada – held a historic summit in Helsinki, Finland, where they signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. This document is known as the Helsinki Final Act or the Helsinki Accords. The Conference, known as the CSCE, continued with follow-up meetings and is today institutionalized as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or OSCE, based in Vienna, Austria. Learn more about the signature of the Helsinki Final Act; the role that the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe played during the Cold War; how the Helsinki Process successfully adapted to the post-Cold War environment of the 1990s; and how today's OSCE can and does contribute to regional security, now and in the future.

  • Baltic Security after the Warsaw NATO Summit

    In the wake of NATO decisions to send significant rotational forces to the Baltic States and Poland to deter Russian aggression, the Helsinki Commission convened a briefing to examine the fluid Baltic security environment.  Helsinki Commission staff member Alex Tiersky opened the briefing by recalling the Helsinki Final Act principles (such as territorial integrity and inviolability of borders) that have been challenged in Europe in recent years, with worrying potential implications for the Baltic states in particular. Karl Altau provided a Baltic-American perspective on the concerns faced by NATO’s eastern flank and the seriousness with which the countries concerned take their NATO commitments. Michael Johnson summarized RAND’s wargame-based research demonstrating the extent of the Baltic States’ vulnerability to potential Russian aggression in the absence of significantly enhanced NATO presence in the region. Magnus Nordenman recalled the relevance of the region to U.S. geopolitical interests and described the potential implications for other regional players in any Russian aggression, as well as the capabilities they potentially could bring to bear.  In the subsequent exchange of views moderated by the Helsinki Commission’s Scott Rauland, representatives from the Baltic embassies in Washington, D.C., voiced their governments’ commitments to a common defense, NATO, and continued cooperation with the United States.

  • Baltic Security Focus of Upcoming Helsinki Commission Briefing

    WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following briefing: “BALTIC SECURITY AFTER THE WARSAW NATO SUMMIT” Wednesday, December 7, 2016 2:00 PM Cannon House Office Building Room 340 The Baltic States are on the front lines of Moscow’s demonstrated willingness to use force to change borders in its neighborhood. In recent years Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been subject to a series of provocations and threats from their Russian neighbor, stoking fears of potential aggression in the region. Many have questioned NATO’s ability and willingness to defend the Baltics from Russian aggression, even after the Alliance decided at the July 2016 Warsaw Summit to deploy four international battalions to the region, in conjunction with a significant commitment of U.S. forces and equipment. Speakers will review Russian actions vis-à-vis the Baltic States; evaluate the multifaceted threats to the region; and assess ongoing national, regional, and Alliance responses. They will also offer their ideas on how the new U.S. Administration should approach the region. The following experts are scheduled to participate: Michael Johnson, Senior Defense Research Analyst, RAND Corporation Magnus Nordenman, Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Deputy Director, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Atlantic Council of the United States Karl Altau, Managing Director, Joint Baltic American National Committee, Inc.

  • Fox Business: Sen. Wicker on Turkey

    Following the July 2016 attempted coup in Turkey, Helsinki Commission Co-Chair Senator Roger Wicker joined Fox Business Network to provide his perspective on recent events in the OSCE participating State and NATO Ally. Calling President Erdogan's subsequent actions "very disturbing," Co-Chairman Wicker noted, "There has been an all-out assault not only on the military -- on admirals and generals -- but also on the judiciary, on universities, on religious leaders." In addition to serving as the co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission, Senator Wicker is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and chairs the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA) Committee on Political Affairs and Security.

  • Witness Profile: Dr. Valery Perry

    Dr. Valery Perry was one of four expert witnesses at the Helsinki Commission’s May 25, 2016 hearing, “Combatting Corruption in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Dr. Perry’s interest in Bosnia began in 1997, when she helped supervise the country’s first municipal elections. Seeing it as a “fascinating example of a peace process,” she completed her Ph.D. research in Bosnia while simultaneously working for several organizations on aspects of peace implementation, democratization, and good governance. During the early post-war years, Perry believes that many Bosnians felt that the situation in the country was improving. However, today there seems to be a sense that the country’s development has not only stagnated, but may even be regressing. During the negotiations of the Dayton Accords, Bosnian citizens were not consulted about the ramifications of the agreement or the new constitution, Perry notes, although they have had to live with the consequences. “It’s troubling for me to think that the United States and some of its allies put in place a peace agreement and a framework constitution that may have served its purpose at one point, but is now actually limiting the ability for citizens to create the vision that they want and to hold their leaders accountable,” she says. “One thing you hear all the time when you talk to people who are from Sarajevo is that the city was very different before the war,” Perry continues. “There are so many people in Bosnia who just want the same things anyone anywhere wants – a decent job, good education for their children, safe streets…. and yet they are so poorly served by this post-war system.” As a result, she observes, the lack of social trust in Bosnia is pervasive. “There’s almost a built-in, learned helplessness, especially among young people who have grown up in a fairly dysfunctional system…assuming that if they don’t join a political party they’ll never get a job, and if they’re not prepared to either use connections or possibly even pay a bribe they won’t pass their exams at the university.” “It became very clear to me that corruption is at the heart of what happens when you don’t have good governance, when you don’t have an accountable electoral system, when you don’t have independent media, and when you don’t have a functioning judiciary,” she says. For example, in Bosnia it is rare to hear of corruption cases that are investigated, prosecuted, and have successfully progressed through the entire appeals process. “The judicial system is really not independent,” she says. “We see a lot of cases where someone is found guilty of corruption or abuse of office, but then there are simply repeated appeals until they get the judge and the decision that they want…everything is politicized and divided according to ethnic and national affiliation rather than merit and civic responsibility.” As a first step to addressing the systematic corruption, Perry recommends strengthening laws on conflict of interest, political party financing and state enterprise regulation and transparency. “It would be useful to look at a number of pieces of legislation that are either weak or have recently been weakened, and try to strengthen those…any reforms that lead to legislation need to be accompanied by very clear articulation of which agencies are competent and responsible for seeing them through,” she suggests. “There [also] needs to be vigorous oversight by investigative journalists and civil society actors and others to move forward.” According to Perry, the United States and the international community can support anti-corruption efforts, but the challenge is complicated. “These issues should become a part of election campaigns and debates,” she says. “I think that this is where the US and other international actors involved in Bosnia can get involved as well: by supporting activists and citizens who are in the public debate and together asking, why any officials or candidates would be against more transparency in terms of appointment to the enterprises, or support opaque financing from the public purse?” In addition to her anti-corruption work, Dr. Perry is also working on a documentary film – “Looking for Dayton” – which follows the experience of three men who fought in Sarajevo during the siege and who visit the US and Dayton Ohio 20 years after the end of the war to find out more about the place that shaped the peace and the Dayton Agreement. She says, “We have a lot of work to do but we’re hoping to use the medium of film to tell a story that is interesting in terms of broader issues related to war and its aftermath and its effect on regular people.”   

  • Chairman Smith Sends Strong Message of Support to Poland Ahead of NATO Summit in Warsaw

    WASHINGTON—Ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw, Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-04) is sending a strong message of support to Poland and other Allies on NATO’s eastern border. “In the face of ongoing Russian aggression, the United States must ramp up its commitment to the security of Poland and our other Allies in the region,” said Chairman Smith. “Russia’s intolerable actions – ranging from military incursions into Georgia and Ukraine, to the threatened use of tactical nuclear weapons, to the abandonment of key transparency measures – are attempts to strike at the very foundation of the European security order.” “This year’s Summit – hosted by a staunch eastern flank Ally that not only contributes troops to NATO operations and hosts NATO facilities, but also devotes the benchmark 2 percent of GDP to defense – comes at a critical moment for European security,” he continued. Chairman Smith, who also co-chairs the Congressional Caucus on Poland, led members in organizing a June 27 letter urging President Obama to ensure that NATO meets the needs of Allies in Eastern Europe in an increasingly hostile and uncertain security environment. The letter was signed by Congressional Caucus on Poland Co-Chairs Rep. Dan Lipinski (IL-03), Rep. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), and Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18), as well as Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Rep. Dan Donovan (NY-11), Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI-12), Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-02), Rep. Mike Quigley (IL-05), and Rep. Brian Higgins (NY-26).  In April 2016, Chairman Smith also signed a letter supporting funding for the European Reassurance Initiative, which demonstrates the U.S commitment to the security of NATO Allies in the face of Russia’s destabilizing foreign policy. On June 23, the Helsinki Commission held a public briefing titled “NATO’s Warsaw Summit and the Future of European Security.” Panelists – including representatives from NATO, the Embassy of Poland, and the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins University – commented on the need for a stronger U.S. security commitment to Poland and other NATO Allies.

  • NATO’s Warsaw Summit and the Future of European Security

    This briefing, conducted two weeks prior to the NATO summit in Warsaw, discussed the prospects and challenges expected to factor into the negotiations. Key among these were Russian aggression and NATO enlargement, cybersecurity, and instability along NATO's southern border. Mr. Pisarski's testimony focused mainly on the challenge posed by Russian aggression and the role played by NATO's partners in maintaining stability in Eastern Europe. Dr. Binnendijk commented on seven areas he argued the Alliance should make progress on at the Warsaw summit, centering mainly around unity, deterrent capability, and the Alliance's southern strategy. Rear Admiral Gumataotao provided a unique insight into NATO Allied Command Transformation's core tasks and their expectations for Warsaw. The question and answer period featured a comment from Georgian Ambassador Gegeshidze, who spoke about his country's stake in the Summit's conclusions in the context of the ongoing Russian occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

  • Helsinki Commission to Preview Outcomes of July NATO Summit in Warsaw

    WASHINGTON—The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission, today announced the following briefing: “NATO’s Warsaw Summit and the Future of European Security” Thursday, June 23, 2016 3:00 PM Rayburn House Office Building Room  2360 NATO’s next Summit, slated for July 8-9 in Warsaw, Poland, is expected to be a seminal moment in the evolution of the transatlantic relationship.  At the Summit, the Alliance will need to tackle uncertainty about the range of security threats confronting its members, with some in the east prioritizing Russian aggression, while others are seeing instability to the South (including the migration crisis) as the most immediate threat.  Heads of the 28 member states will need to demonstrate cohesive unity of purpose despite differences on these issues and others, ranging from NATO’s potential contribution to fighting terrorism to the continued role of nuclear weapons in NATO’s deterrence and defense posture. These discussions will be heightened by the Summit’s strategic location in the capital of a staunch eastern flank Ally that contributes to NATO operations and exercises, hosts NATO facilities, and – crucially – leads by example by devoting the NATO-agreed benchmark 2 percent of GDP to defense. Panelists will comment on the outcomes they expect from the Summit, implications for the broader transatlantic relationship, and the future of relations with Russia. The following experts are scheduled to participate: Rear Admiral Peter Gumataotao, Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategic Plans & Policy, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Mr. Maciej Pisarski, Deputy Chief of Mission, Embassy of the Republic of Poland to the United States of America Dr. Hans Binnendijk, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, The Johns Hopkins University

Pages