Soviet Involvement in AfghanistanThursday, May 03, 1990
The purpose of this hearing, which Sen. Dennis DeConcini and Rep. Steny Hoyer presided over, was to examine what was happening in Afghanistan at the time, specifically in relation to the U.S.S.R. At the time of this hearing, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had ceased, and Moscow had expended financial, military, and human resources that had cost the country dearly, towards a war that had grown to be overwhelmingly with the Soviet populace, no less. Likewise, the Soviet conflict with Afghanistan had serious repercussions for the Soviet economy, which was why it was surprising that, even after the war, the U.S.S.R. had continued to spend significant capital to prop up the government in Kabul. Another issue was where U.S. aid was going and whether or not it was being properly spent.
The Baltic QuestionThursday, October 19, 1989
This Helsinki Commission hearing was brought to order due to the independence movements in the Baltic States. The independence movements in these states expressed the desire for self-rule on the part of peoples who, after forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union, had been brutally colonized for 50 years, reduced to the status of minorities and second-class citizens in their historic homelands, robbed of their language, their culture and their history, and victimized by police brutality and environmental assault. They sought independence from Moscow not because they hate Russians, but because they saw it as a prerequisite for physical and cultural survival.
Respect for territorial integrity - the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states, nor impose a border change through the use of force - is a guiding principle among OSCE participating States under Article IV of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. It goes hand in hand with Article VIII: equal rights and the principle of self-determination.
Unfortunately, these principles are often invoked simultaneously, allowing states to disregard one in the name of the other. As a result, independence movements, border disputes, interference, and even invasions and annexation in places such as Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transdniestra, Abkhazia, and Georgia, and most recently Ukraine, repeatedly demonstrate that the OSCE still has a vital role to play in resolving territorial disputes.
While the basis for some of these disputes are quite complicated, others are clear cut, none perhaps more so than the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. The views of the Helsinki Commission on the matter are reflected in the U.S. Mission’s statement to the Permanent Council, condemning in the strongest terms “Russia’s continued disregard for its international obligations and commitments which obstructs the path toward a peaceful and united future for Ukraine.”
Staff Contact: Alex Tiersky, senior policy advisor