Latest news with #HelsinkiFinalAct
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
How to transform the OSCE so that it fulfills its mission?
Keynote speech by Olga Aivazovska, Head of the Board of Civil Network OPORA for the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act at an event organized in Oslo by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, the Embassy of Finland, and the Norwegian Helsinki Committee on June 12, 2025. Since the Helsinki Final Act was adopted, Europe, the US and Canada have lost the memory of World War II and fear of new mass violence and bloodshed. The law of force, as opposed to the rule of law, dominates the agenda and serves as a preventive factor to further violence. International law developed as a system of safeguards and gentlemen's agreements. The Helsinki Final Act did not take the form of an international treaty in the classical conventional sense, but recorded agreements and the lessons learned from the World War II. At that time, Moscow insisted on protecting the principle of immutability of borders, but its true aim was to legitimize the occupation of the Baltic states. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, having recognized Ukraine's sovereignty, Russia then occupied 20% of Ukrainian territory and wants to take it all. It demands that Ukraine stops its legitimate self-defense in accordance with the UN Charter and withdraw even from territories that Russia had never occupied but which have been illegally included in the Russian Constitution as part of a dirty geopolitical game. Would this have been possible if the world had reacted harshly and decisively to the attack on Georgia in 2008 or the beginning of the occupation of Ukrainian Crimea in 2014? No, because when those who break agreements faced only symbolic, rather than proportionate, consequences for their crimes, they kept going until they were stopped by force. The time for dialogues only is over. The dialogue must be accompanied by actions and readiness of the armed forces of Western countries for legitimate collective self-defence. Today, Europe has changed because we didn't manage to stop Russia. This is not a pessimistic view, but a straightforward fact. Sometimes, even our international friends say (or think) that Ukrainians are overly emotional and traumatized. But the truth is that we have accepted a terrifying reality and are trying to resist it — rather than believing in wishful thinking, which belongs to the world of fantasy. There is no more security in Europe and all hybrid threats will become real for countries under the NATO umbrella if Ukraine loses to the aggressor. Just two days before this event, on June 9 and 10, Russia launched 821 drones and missiles at Ukraine (mostly against Kyiv and Odesa). The country that claims to be the legal successor of the Soviet Union, which during the drafting of the Helsinki Final Act insisted on the inviolability of borders and cooperation in Europe, now uses different types of weapons: Iranian-made Shahed drones, Russian Iskander-K, Kh-101, Kh-22, Kh-31P, Kh-35 missiles, Kinzhal hypersonic weapons, and North Korean KN-23s. This is what cooperation within the new Axis of Evil looks like. In the past, at least some statements came from the OSCE. But now, not even a word is heard in response to a Russian missile striking maternity hospitals, a drone damaging a Saint Sophia Cathedral — a millennium-old monument to Ukrainian statehood and a UNESCO heritage site — or the repeated attacks on homes of civilians and completely unprotected human beings. I travelled from Kyiv to Oslo by land over 26 hours, as this is the only route left to us. Only two days ago, my city was blackened with smoke and soot, and over a million of its residents did not sleep at all on the night of June 9 to 10. Anyone who has experienced this kind of sleep deprivation and exhaustion caused by regular night-time attacks understands that this is a tactic of particularly cynical cruelty. When the Ukrainian Security Service carried out a successful operation to destroy Russia's strategic aviation on its own territory — the aviation that regularly attacks civilians every night and has been destroying Ukraine's energy infrastructure for the past three years of war — we hear statements from partners that Russia will face consequences, and then there is nothing. In other words, when partners stay passive and accepting, it only fuels the aggressor's appetite. I want to emphasize: the week before that special operation, Russia killed three rescue workers who were trying to help civilians in Kyiv. Imagine — it has become the norm for our enemy to launch double strikes to kill not only civilians in their beds at night, but also those who come to help them. We are being killed every day, and it is not a reaction — it is punishment for the fact that Ukraine exists as a sovereign democratic state fighting for its independence and survival. The Helsinki Final Act was not just a historic agreement — it was an aspiration — a shared promise for comprehensive security rooted in sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights, and cooperation. But half a century later, the gap between those promises and today's reality is huge — and keeps getting wider. The OSCE — an institution that should guard the Helsinki norms — is trapped in its own architecture. What was designed as a platform for consensus has become a victim of consensus rule abuse. When the Russian Federation, as a participating State, can systematically block urgent decisions, not for the sake of negotiation but to paralyze, we are no longer operating a security organization. We are enabling impunity. Read also: Conveyor belt of terror: how Russia uses double-tap strikes in Ukraine, as it did in Syria The Helsinki Final Act had set expectations, but those expectations have not been met. This isn't because the principles themselves were wrong, but because there were no effective tools to enforce them. OSCE commitments are political. They cannot be challenged in court. And in the name of diplomacy, some States and OSCE institutions often avoid what must be said — that states have violated the core norms they once signed. We have entered a space of double standards, where "sharp corners" are omitted and breaches of the founding principles are observed but not addressed. The OSCE has become a stage where the aggressor is still welcomed, truth is softened, and violations are downplayed as 'positions.' This is not neutrality. It is dysfunctional. I had the experience of working as an independent expert in the political subgroup of the Trilateral Contact Group in Minsk, and I can state, as an insider, that the dialogue process is not always accompanied by adherence to international law or OSCE standards — even by OSCE representatives themselves. Loyalty to falsehood is not a form of support for freedom of speech. Dialogue that avoids naming the guilty party as guilty does not foster trust. Meanwhile, the appointment of heads of OSCE institutions increasingly resembles political bargaining — not based on merit or independence. Leaders enter office cautious not to provoke, mindful of reappointment, rather than driven by mandate. This results in timid institutions, increasingly reluctant to use the language and tools at their disposal. Add to this Russia's multi-year budget blockade. The OSCE Unified Budget — now largely consumed by staff costs — is slowly turning the OSCE into a shell. An event organizer, a convener of conferences, rather than a political actor with "teeth". Field work is weakened. Innovation is stalled. Vision is replaced by bureaucratic survival. ODIHR's reporting on international humanitarian law violations, for instance, has been reduced to a formality. These reports, once expected to inform political pressure and advocacy, are now produced and posted on the backstage of the OSCE website. What is the follow-up? Where is the voice or campaign to ensure that victims are heard and perpetrators are named? Let us be honest: the OSCE failed to prevent the large-scale war in Ukraine through the means of its mandate. But what is worse is that today, it is failing to respond to it with moral clarity. We are often asked: "What is the alternative?" Is there a difference between reform and denial? If we treat the OSCE as untouchable simply because no alternative exists, we make ourselves involved in its erosion. The better question is: How do we rebuild the OSCE into something that can again serve its purpose? Convening power is not about organizing events with balanced panels. It is about mobilizing political will around the values the organization was once created to protect. It is about inviting uncomfortable conversations, exposing violations, and convening not just dialogue, but the vision of a secure Europe. The OSCE still has the infrastructure, some, yet limited, field presence, the normative framework. But if we are serious about multilateralism, then we must stop being cautious. We must act. Defend truth. Insist on accountability and lead it. The question is not whether the OSCE still has a role. The question is whether the participating States and OSCE institutions have the courage to use it properly to ensure comprehensive European and transatlantic security. Olga Aivazovska
Irish Independent
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Letters: Irish and Austrian leaders should respect public's desire for real neutrality
Both Ireland and Austria are unfortunately in a very similar position. In each country, the political and media elites are adamantly opposed to neutrality even though in each country public opinion is adamantly in favour. As a result, governments in both countries have over many years salami-sliced away genuine neutrality while being unable to take the final step of joining Nato. This results in a situation that pleases no one. It is time for our leaders to accept that the Irish people support neutrality. Neutrality does not mean isolationism. During the early years of Ireland's UN membership, diplomats such as Frank Aiken, Frederick Boland and Conor Cruise O'Brien leveraged our neutrality to make us a trusted broker between East and West. This culminated in the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Austria also played its part. Its chancellor Bruno Kreisky was a renowned proponent of positive neutrality and helped broker the Helsinki Final Act, another important moment in Cold War detente. If we are to follow the Austrian model, it should be the positive neutrality of Bruno Kreisky. Stephen Kelly, Peace and Neutrality Alliance, Glenageary, Co Dublin People are opening their eyes to the situation in Gaza – 20 months too late I see the change coming. I see the word 'genocide' creeping into newspaper articles, not everywhere yet and not in huge black lettering across the front page as it should be but meekly and hesitantly, like dipping its toes into the waters first to see what this change of tack might bring. I see interviewers ease up just a little with their unending 'do you condemn October 7?' chorus while still playing their game of a 'need for journalistic balance'. They won't let that go for quite some time yet. I see politicians who once believed that everything, no matter how heinous or in contravention of international law it might be, was permissible in the name of self-defence, become now quite adamant that what is being done is apparently 'despicable', 'completely unacceptable' and 'intolerable'. I see well-dressed liberals pull out hastily adjusted scripts and speak in well-rehearsed tones with just the right grimacing of facial features to help portray enough concern and feeling to hide the months of not giving a shit that went before. It turns out, you see, that the claim of self-defence when placed against the possibility of thousands of starving children doesn't work so well, and searching for those famous tunnels beneath the bodies of emaciated babies and toddlers sits uneasily with the public. So let them all try and run for cover – media, politicians, artists, whoever. It won't work. It's been too long. We have seen too much and we are destroyed inside for ever more. As the book says, 'One day everyone will have always been against this.' But seriously, if it took someone 20 months to reach this side of the line, then there is something very, very wrong with them. Dorothy Collin, Rathangan, Co Kildare Netanyahu and Hamas are cold-blooded killers – both must be stopped now A young Jewish couple just starting out in life together, who worked for the Israeli embassy, were murdered by an alleged Palestinian sympathiser in Washington DC last Wednesday. A Palestinian couple further on in their lives together, both doctors attending to the dire needs of their compatriots in Khan Younis, had nine of their 10 children murdered by an Israeli airstrike on Saturday. Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is out of control, Hamas mercilessly exploits its own people and the world, having averted its gaze for a long time, has now firmly closed its eyes. With humanity having thrown away its ethical and moral compass, future Wednesdays and Saturdays or any other days in the weeks to come, will bring even worse abominations. The generations to come may never forgive us, nor indeed should they. Michael Gannon, St Thomas Square, Kilkenny We have our problems in Ireland, but many more reasons to be cheerful At a time when public sentiment often feels anxious or weary – shaped by both global upheavals and local pressures –it's worth stepping back to recognise that Ireland has many reasons for measured optimism. This isn't naive cheerfulness, but perspective earned through experience. We're beginning to see more thoughtful approaches to housing emerge: community-led developments, innovative use of derelict sites and policies that prioritise people over profit. Meanwhile, Ireland's democracy continues to distinguish itself through its civility and genuine engagement. The success of the Good Friday Agreement institutions and cross-border co-operation demonstrates something increasingly rare – the ability to have difficult conversations with nuance rather than noise, while the everyday decency that characterises public discourse speaks to deeper democratic health. In research and innovation, Ireland consistently punches well above its weight. From groundbreaking medical technologies to climate solutions, from fundamental scientific research to creative industries, the country's intellectual output reflects both ambition and expertise. The education system, while still evolving, is increasingly attentive to student well-being, creativity and practical skills, alongside academic achievement. Perhaps most significantly, Irish identity itself remains a quiet but genuine strength. Rooted in history yet cosmopolitan in outlook, modern Irishness encompasses empathy, inclusion and collective endeavour as much as it does tradition and heritage. Ireland faces real challenges – housing, climate adaptation, economic inequality among them. But there's wisdom in recognising what's working well and building from those foundations. In an era of global uncertainty, Ireland's combination of pragmatic governance, innovative spirit and social cohesion offers a model worth nurturing. Enda Cullen, Tullysaran Road, Armagh Hopefully we'll scoff Choc Ices again before summer's end The sun is gone and the showers are back, the northerly breeze is blowing away any trace of summer. And yet we live in hope. As Christy Moore sang in Lisdoonvarna, 'Anyone for the last few Choc Ices, now?' M O Brien, Dalkey, Co Dublin
Canada Standard
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Canada Standard
Canada's FM: Karabakh Armenians were forcibly displaced
- Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly issued a message commemorating the Armenian Genocide and highlighting the forced displacement of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. "More than 1.5 million Armenians were killed in 1915. We must ensure their names and stories are never forgotten," Joly wrote on X, as reported by . She also shared a video message marking the anniversary. "We join Armenian communities in Canada and around the world to remember and honor those who continue to live with the pain and tragedy of loss. Today, we recognize the resilience of the 120,000 indigenous Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh who, in 2023, were forcibly displaced from their lands for the first time in history. Far too much suffering and destruction occurred in Nagorno-Karabakh," Joly stated. She stressed that as the world marks the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act - the foundation for the OSCE - it remains vital to combat hatred, denial, and extremism while upholding Canada's core values domestically and globally. Joly concluded her message with an Armenian phrase: " " ("We remember and demand"). Source:
Yahoo
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 steps for securing an eastward enlargement of the European Union
Russia's war against Ukraine is not only about Ukraine's freedom and survival, but also about the future of Europe's hard security. Russia wants to replace the cooperative, democratic security order in Europe, the principles of which were outlined 50 years ago in the Helsinki Final Act, with one where might makes right and Russia is an empire dominating large swathes of Europe. This would pose an existential security threat to the European Union and its member states. The EU's decision to open accession negotiations with Ukraine is a geostrategic investment that could strengthen the European security order and prevent Russia from achieving its ambitions. It does so not only by defending Ukraine's sovereign right to pursue a European path, but also by securing military capabilities and strategic resources for the EU. However, even though Ukraine could contribute to the EU's security in the long term as a full member, it is primarily Europe that must ensure Ukraine's security. NATO membership remains Ukraine's goal — it is enshrined in the constitution and supported by a clear majority of Ukrainian citizens. However, there is currently no consensus within NATO on extending an invitation to Ukraine. This could change quickly, and European countries are right to insist that Ukrainian NATO membership would be the best and cheapest option for ensuring security in the North Atlantic area. Nonetheless, the prospects for Ukrainian NATO membership remain distant, so the EU must seriously consider how it can secure its geostrategic investment — an EU eastward enlargement — without security guarantees under NATO's Article 5. The EU may also face fundamentally new and urgent military challenges in light of U.S. President Donald Trump's expressed ambition to reach a ceasefire deal in Russia's war. While the form of such a deal and the prospects for reaching it are far from certain, any form of ceasefire settlement would need to be followed by credible security assurances to Ukraine. Without this, Ukraine would be defenseless against renewed Russian aggression (as happened after the conclusion of the Minsk agreements). The possibility that EU member states and countries like the U.K. and Norway would have to deploy troops on Ukrainian territory in the case of a ceasefire deal cannot be ruled out. Against this backdrop, the need to step up the EU's hard security is not a distant task that needs to be realized only after Ukraine joins the EU. To secure an eastward EU enlargement and address potentially immediate military challenges, the EU must deliver on its ambition to become a geostrategic actor, both on its own and in close cooperation with NATO. It must show, through deeds, that it has both the political resolve and the capabilities to defend itself and its core interests. Some of the measures needed to achieve that ambition will require deviations from the status quo and reassessments of the EU's role. The feasibility of implementing the required steps to ensure the EU's hard security will not only stem from political desire in European capitals, but also from external circumstances and pressure from the U.S. These factors may provide the sense of necessity that, as in the past, enables EU member states to unite, shape, and reshape European cooperation. First, European policymakers should consider implementing key institutional reforms in foreign and security policy. Currently, the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) remains intergovernmental; since decisions require consensus among member states, EU action can suffer from a lack of timeliness and effectiveness. A move to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the CFSP would enhance the EU's policymaking efficiency and could arguably be done without a Treaty change. QMV has been discussed in the past, but today's geopolitical challenges could provide the impetus to move ahead with it. The CFSP is also an area that Ukraine and Moldova could be integrated into immediately, for example, by allowing them to participate in key CFSP decision-making forums and by integrating them into EU security initiatives such as the European Defence Agency (EDA) and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). Second, the EU's enhanced geostrategic role will require large-scale investments and efforts in security and defense. Defense spending in member states would need to exceed at least 3% of GDP, a significant portion of which would be devoted to military assistance to Ukraine and investments in the Ukrainian defense industry. The European Council conclusions on European defense from March 6 welcomed the European Commission's plans to facilitate increased national defense spending and provide member states with defense loans. They also called on the European Investment Bank (EIB) to adapt its lending practices to the defense industry, re-evaluate the list of excluded activities and increase the volume of available funding. These conclusions outline necessary steps in the right direction. Taking on EU common debt through defense bonds could also offer financial firepower for closing capability gaps and strengthening Europe's defense infrastructure. For such a step to be viable, countries that have traditionally opposed joint debt would need to change their frugal positions. Third, if the EU is to succeed in taking on a new role in world politics, European leaders must improve their strategic communication with citizens. A change in strategic culture in Europe — based on an understanding among citizens of, for example, why enlargement is a geostrategic investment, why enlargement needs security, and the urgent military challenges the EU might face — will be key to ensuring domestic support for investments in security and defense. Strategic communication with the citizens of EU member states about the concrete contributions that candidate countries can make to the EU's security and economic prosperity as full member states will also play an important role. Fourth, greater and closer cooperation between the EU and NATO will be necessary to ensure effective complementarity and intelligence sharing between the two organizations. One step could be sealing a new partnership between the EU and NATO, under which the EU would use its financial and regulatory tools to help member states fulfill NATO capability requirements and enforce more strictly defined NATO standardization agreements for equipment and ammunition to enhance interoperability. Trilateral exchanges between the EU, NATO, and groups of EU member states on creating military mobility corridors and consolidating multinational military logistics would further strengthen cooperation and could be proactively suggested to the U.S. by European states. Fifth, bearing in mind the possibility of a military operation on Ukrainian territory, European states should ensure they create the structures necessary for its implementation. There is a need to establish a joint military command, along with various staff structures, responsible for planning both the operation itself and potential reinforcements for deployed troops in the event of a crisis. Additionally, logistics and intelligence structures will need to be set up, and the military units that could participate must be identified. Ideally, these would be multinational formations already established within the framework of NATO's joint command in Europe, such as the Multinational Corps Northeast. The question of possible independent military operations by European NATO members, without the participation of the U.S., has arisen several times in NATO's history. These ideas have traditionally been rejected by Washington, partly because of concerns that an increasingly autonomous Europe would undermine U.S. authority in NATO, duplicate NATO resources, and threaten NATO cohesion. If Washington is shifting its approach to Europe's security, now may be the right time to revisit the idea of establishing European cells within NATO. This would allow Europe to take on the primary responsibility for ensuring Ukraine's (and Europe's) security, while maintaining critical U.S. support within NATO for logistics, airlift, and strategic reconnaissance. Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. The article summarizes the results of a longer SCEEUS report, linked here. Submit an Opinion Read also: Come to Bucha, JD Vance We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
UK Ambassador Reveals Bleak Impact Putin's War In Ukraine Is Actually Having On Civilians
The number of civilian casualties as a result of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is 'likely far higher' than experts believe, according to a senior UK official. The United Nations has claimed that more than 30,000 non-combatants have either been killed or injured since the conflict began nearly three years ago. But Neil Holland, the UK's ambassador to the OSCE – Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe – said: 'These are a conservative estimate. The true figure is likely far higher.' The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) did have a slightly higher total in December when it claimed 12,340 civilians had been killed and more than 27,836 injured in Ukraine. That stat comes on top of the casualties estimated from both the Ukrainian forces and the Russian forces. Kyiv confirmed in December that it has 43,000 soldiers killed in action and 370,000 more wounded. Russia does not usually reveal its own casualties. However, an independent tally by the BBC's Russian service and Mediazone news website suggested more than 90,000 Russian troops have been killed during the war. But, again, that is believed that to be a conservative estimate. Speaking to the OSCE in Vienna on Thursday, ambassador Hammond said Putin's war was 'indefensible'. He also claimed Moscow's actions have been inconsistent with Russia's international commitments, including under the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and the Helsinki Final Act. The ambassador pointed out how Russia launched 13 wide-scale missile attacks against Ukraine's energy infrastructure in 2024, and how this threatened civilian access to power, water and heating – as well as endangering nuclear power plants. Hammond added: 'The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that these attacks on energy infrastructure constituted the war crime of excessive incidental civilian harm and potentially a crime against humanity.' UK Highlights 1 Sign Ukraine Is Increasing Its Ability To Target Russia Putin's UK Ambassador Has A Theory On How Britain Will React If Trump Softens On Russia 'We See You': Defence Secretary Sends Warning To Putin After Russian Spy Ship Hits UK Waters
