OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015

OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2014-15 (1. samling)
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 23
Offentligt

AS (15) RP 3 E

Original: English

REPORT

FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON

DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND

HUMANITARIAN QUESTIONS

Recalling the Spirit of Helsinki

RAPPORTEUR

Ms. Gordana Comic

Serbia

HELSINKI, 5 – 9 JULY 2015

OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015

REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE

ON DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN QUESTIONS

Rapporteur: Ms. Gordana Comic (Serbia)

While gathering to celebrate the 40

anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, it is incumbent

upon us to examine whether the OSCE that we have today remains true to the spirit and

principles of that remarkable document. The Final Act was controversial in 1975, but has

been widely celebrated since the time of its signing. Today’s OSCE Institutions were built up

bit-by-bit over many years to help with the implementation of commitments made at the

political level. It is therefore appropriate to consider if the Institutions that we now have are

sufficient for this purpose, but also more importantly, to consider whether the political

dialogue currently taking place under the auspices of the OSCE is true to the OSCE/CSCE’s

roots.

The Helsinki Final Act overall was quite State-centric. The high priority given to the

“inviolability of frontiers” and to the “non-intervention in internal affairs” was criticised at

the time as a virtual ratification of the post-World War II borders. This was an agreement

between sovereign States, solidifying the States and their borders as they were at that time.

However, at the heart of the CSCE’s success was the seventh of the 10 Principles Guiding

Relations between participating States, commonly known as the Helsinki Decalogue. This

seventh principle, ‘Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the

freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief,’ added important perspective to the rest of

the document. This seventh principle, instead of focusing on States’ rights, put individuals’

rights front and centre. Indeed, it codified that the human rights of another State’s population

was a relevant matter of concern to all participating States. The development of subsequent

concepts like ‘human security’ and even the ‘responsibility to protect’ can arguably be traced

to Helsinki and the CSCE.

The concepts embodied in the Helsinki Final Act have undergone significant development

and deepening since 1975. It is no longer unusual for a country or international organization

to comment on the treatment by a government of its own people. We see this daily within the

OSCE region when countries rightly criticize each other for issues related to people

imprisoned for their political activities, for the continued use of the death penalty, for their

treatment of refugees, or for crackdowns on independent journalism and human rights

defenders. The fact that we hear so regularly of these cases clearly demonstrates that

implementation by States of their commitments is lacking, if there were any doubt.

A wide range of institutions and bodies have been established under the OSCE’s umbrella to

deal with many of the challenges identified in the Helsinki Final Act. In 1975, the drafters of

the Final Act focused particular attention on national minorities, freedom of the media and

religious freedom. The OSCE now has significant spokespersons who are effective in

highlighting concerns and suggesting remedies within these fields. The independent mandate

of the High Commissioner on National Minorities, who consults with the Chairperson-in-

Office but does not report to the Permanent Council, has made this an effective body for early

warning on issues related to minorities. The Representative on Freedom of the Media has

remained an effective monitor and a steadfast advocate of free speech in spite of increasing

criticism by some countries of the Institution and the Representative herself.

AS15RP3E

OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015

Consistent monitoring of democratic rights has also largely been a success story within the

OSCE. While difficulties have regularly occurred in co-operation, the 1997 Co-operation

Agreement, governing relations between the OSCE PA and the ODIHR, has ensured that

parliamentarians play a leading role in the observation of elections. The independence that

elected politicians bring to this endeavour, supported with the strong technical abilities of the

ODIHR, has enabled OSCE observation missions to continue to speak with credibility and to

hold participating States to the commitments that they themselves have agreed to.

Another area which was a significant challenge in the 1970s, that of facilitating contacts

across borders and cultural exchanges, is much less relevant today with modern technology

and a more globalized world. However, the echo of this challenge remains today, with

significant differences throughout the OSCE region related to the treatment of refugees and

migrants. Countries’ neighbouring areas of humanitarian crisis have been carrying an

outsized burden in hosting refugees, and greater willingness to accept movement across

borders on humanitarian grounds is necessary.

Considering that much of the success of the Helsinki Final Act can be traced to the

recognition that individual rights are relevant on the international plane, it is necessary to

consider if the OSCE’s current functioning does justice to this founding principle. While the

key OSCE Institutions that have been established – the Parliamentary Assembly, the High

Commissioner for National Minorities, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human

Rights, and the Representative on Freedom of the Media – do put individuals’ rights at the

core of their mandates, the same cannot be said of the decision-making processes. The

Permanent Council of representatives of each OSCE participating State remains stubbornly

state-based in its approach. Not only does civil society lack a voice in this forum, but OSCE

populations are not even entitled to information on their deliberations. By steadfastly meeting

behind closed doors, with no media access or effective reporting on meetings, the public is

effectively shut out.

The Permanent Council of today is inadequate as a forum for dialogue, which was the entire

intention of the Helsinki process. Statements prepared in advance are read out, generally with

little change week after week. Reports from the OSCE PA’s Special Representative in Vienna

make it evident that the only change in recent years has been a sharpening of rhetoric. This

lack of effective dialogue and increasingly harsh language does little or nothing to alleviate

the very real human rights and humanitarian concerns that exist throughout the OSCE region.

Criticisms and counter-criticisms related to Russia’s occupation of parts of Ukraine and

continued support for separatist rebels there do little to address the dire human rights situation

of people personally impacted by the conflict. The fact of the matter is that human rights have

been politicized and are used as a tool for critique between states rather than as a safeguard

for individuals.

The failures in the OSCE’s decision-making process and the politicization of human rights

have hamstrung the OSCE’s ability to effectively monitor and report on problems. The OSCE

Ministerial Council has been unable to agree on any significant decisions within the human

rights field for several years. The need for consensus for the adoption of all decisions,

especially without the requirement to publicly justify positions, is a serious impediment to

human rights work. OSCE field missions – the crown jewels of the Organization – are more

and more restricted in their ability to report on human rights concerns, as host countries wield

their veto power in the Permanent Council to strip reporting out of missions’ mandates.

AS15RP3E

OSCE, Alm.del - 2014-15 (1. samling) - Bilag 23: Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Helsingfors fra 6. til 10. juli 2015

Human rights concerns are rarely addressed in any depth in the Permanent Council. The

annual two-week Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) is portrayed as the

appropriate forum for discussion on these topics, but is wholly inadequate as an effective

review mechanism of human rights in the OSCE area. The mere existence of the HDIM

serves as a convenient excuse to avoid effective discussion and monitoring of human rights

during the remaining 50 weeks of the year.

People have come to enjoy and expect the rights granted in Helsinki and thereafter, and they

see international organizations as supporting these rights. They consider – just as our leaders

in 1975 did – that their rights are legitimate issues for the international community to address.

Unfortunately, there is a clear push-back from governments in many OSCE countries against

this. They seek to reclaim international relations as the sole prerogative of the state, with no

regard paid to individual rights. It is unfortunate to admit, but the ‘spirit’ of Helsinki is

woefully lacking in the OSCE today, most notably in the human dimension.

Considering the applause that the CSCE/OSCE has received over the past 40 years, it is a

worthwhile effort to work to regain this lost spirit. This entails a clear and public recognition

that the fundamental rights of all OSCE peoples are the legitimate concern of all OSCE

countries. Effective implementation of these rights requires transparency through effective

and ongoing monitoring by robust and independent institutions and public reporting.

AS15RP3E