Highlights - Call for Action - Helsinki +50 meeting: The role of the OSCE in addressing the conflict in Ukraine and its consequences

Highlights from the Call for Action – Helsinki+50
meeting on “The role of the OSCE in addressing the
conflict in Ukraine and its consequences”1
Wednesday, 23 March 2022, 14:30 – 17:00 CET, Zoom
Representatives of the OSCE institutions reported on their ongoing activities and
programmatic responses:
• CPC: prioritized duty of care to international and national staff; issued policy guidance on
anti-trafficking; started scoping enhanced assistance to the field operation in Moldova as
well as other field operations to support host authorities in facing economic and social
repercussions of the war. Mentioned possible ExB projects to help with the humanitarian
crisis based on the needs of the UA government and civil society and possible limited
presence of the SMM and PCU in the near future. Encouraged OSCE Parliamentarians to
urge the respective Governments to actively support the extensions of the mandates of
SMM (expiring at the end of March) and PCU (expiring in June). If SMM mandate is not
extended due to the current circumstances, the Mission could continue for some time with
mainly administrative activities.
• HCNM: warned about the danger of instrumentalizing and politicizing national minorities,
as this would harm not only future reconciliation efforts in UA but also pose a risk to the
neighboring countries and the wider OSCE region. Ongoing rhetoric and hate speech could
become a catalyst for development of security-oriented policies in other participating States
that would result in worsening situation for national minorities there.
• ODIHR: provided administrative support to the Moscow Mechanism, a fact finding and
assessment mission, which plans to address human rights and humanitarian impact on the
ground; set up monitoring and documentation mechanism, including interim assessment
and final report to ensure accountability for the violations of the international human rights
and humanitarian law; carried out trafficking assessment and provided advice on how to
coordinate anti-trafficking response in the neighboring countries. Mentioned a possible
human rights assessment mission at a later stage in cooperation with local authorities and
civil society, as well as SMM and PCU and a possible training for UA human rights
1
The Highlights from the OSCE PA Call for Action - Helsinki +50 Meetings are not intended to be official
conclusions, nor an exhaustive list of all issues or suggestions raised during the debate, but rather a compilation of
points recorded for possible future reference. As this compilation is not exhaustive, any comments or suggested
additions are welcome.
Offentligt
OSCE Alm.del - Bilag 15
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2021-22
defenders on human rights monitoring. Expressed readiness to provide emergency
legislative assistance to the parliament and support parliamentary diplomacy efforts.
• RFoM: voiced concern about the drastic situation in UA for journalists, reminding
participants that a number of them had lost their lives while trying to cover the war, and
warned about the RF’s rapid movement towards total censorship; underlined the need to
distinguish between deliberate disinformation and war propaganda; mentioned close
cooperation with partners in UNESCO, CoE and EU as well as civil society and journalists
on the ground.
Main points raised by panelists and participants in the discussion:
• voiced their concern about the dire humanitarian situation in Ukraine and an increasing
risk of human trafficking for refugees and displaces persons. Participants also warned about
the far-reaching consequences of this war on the OSCE region.
• commended governments and civil societies in Poland, Slovakia, Moldova, Romania and
Hungary for their help in receiving Ukrainian refugees.
• emphasized the importance of providing protection to the refugees, since they are at greater
risk for human trafficking and smuggling. Stricter security in camps, registration of
housing offers, and identity checks were proposed.
• expressed their readiness to assist with alleviation of the humanitarian crisis.
Parliamentarians also pointed out that their concerns about the plight of civilians and the
situation in Ukraine are shared by ordinary citizens across the OSCE region. In this regard,
there is a role for MPs in taking the lead and showing their constituents the contribution to
Ukraine by the OSCE.
• One participant argued that the OSCE should not kick out Russia from the organization or
suspend its membership, as it did in the past with Yugoslavia or Belarus (as far as the PA
was concerned). Containment and retaliation are not the ways out of the present war; as
much as the economic sanctions will bring more sufferings to those implementing them
rather than to those against whom they are implemented, without bringing the war to its
end. To stop the sufferings of the Ukrainian people and Ukraine’s destruction, there is a
need to engage Russia in the process of rational and positive talks.
• In response to the question of the possible failure of the OSCE as a security organization
in preventing the war, it was pointed out that existing tools were used in as much as the
participating States allowed it, given the consensus nature of the organization. The early
warnings have been issued, the situation has been duly monitored for years, and further
action had to be taken by participating States. The participants underlined there is a role
for the OSCE now, especially by promoting dialogue, and in the immediate aftermath of
the war, as it has flexible instruments from its conflict cycle toolbox that can prevent future
wars and conflicts.
• Other participants concluded that the war was a failure not just on part of the OSCE, but
the whole international community. The OSCE should draw lessons on how to prevent
such conflicts in future and reconsider if the existing tools are sufficient to do so.
Recommendations:
• Ukrainian delegation urged participating States to impose a no-fly zone, increase military
and economic support to Ukraine, and strengthen sanctions against the RF.
• Parliaments should encourage their governments to support humanitarian efforts and
protect refugees.
• Parliamentarians should urge their governments support the field operations in Ukraine,
including the extension of their mandates.
• Parliamentarians should use their influence on governments to make full use of OSCE as
a unique platform to detect, prevent and defuse crises and conflicts in its region.
• Parliamentarians should support their governments in development and implementation of
policies for diverse societies and pay due attention to preserving the social cohesion of the
host countries when designing an overall response to the refugee crisis.
• OSCE and PA leadership could conduct a visit to Kyiv to assess the situation on the ground.
• OSCE PA leadership could put forward an appeal for diplomatic dialogue and peace talks
to be presented simultaneously by each OSCE PA delegation in national parliaments.
• OSCE should coordinate its efforts with the EU, UN specialized structures to help with the
refugee influx and with their subsequent integration.
• OSCE could hold a conference on the history of the engagement of the organization on the
ground to draw lessons from the past and discuss the most efficient tools at its disposal.
• OSCE and PA leadership in cooperation with the UN Secretary General could convene a
conference involving the permanent members of UN Security Council, Ukraine and a
number of other European countries (possibly including Ukraine’s neighbors). The
conference would aim to discuss guarantees for Ukraine if it were to choose neutrality.
• With the consent of Ukraine, UN General Assembly could deploy a peacekeeping force to
protect humanitarian corridors.
• Interested countries could appeal to the UN to establish a no-fly zone over nuclear power
plants and humanitarian corridors.
• One participant proposed consideration of an overall strategy of engagement for the OSCE,
which should include the following steps: i. to reopen the channels of communications
between the opposing sides which were closed or to keep open those which are still
functional; ii. to take a stand against the inflammatory and offensive rhetoric, since, as long
as nobody wants to start a third world war, the time is for dialogue and negotiations, and
not for recrimination and mutual condemnations; iii. to prepare itself for providing support
to the peace process through field missions of monitoring and peace keeping; iv. to provide
humanitarian aid and to implement humanitarian protection measures for the civilians who
are victims of the war; v. to draft a blueprint for a model of protecting the rights of those
belonging to the ethnic minorities living in Ukraine and to assist to and monitor its
implementation in the shortest delay; vi. to facilitate the agreement on a peace solution
through negotiations, by providing mediation and/or good offices.