Title

By Jordan Warlick, Policy Advisor From November 2 to November 3, 2017, Helsinki Commission staff participated in the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on the Role of Free Media in the Comprehensive Approach to Security. Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings are convened a few times per year on specific subjects that are determined to deserve distinct focus by the Chairmanship-in-Office. Like the annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings bring participating States and civil society actors together, facilitating dialogue on challenges to human rights issues in the OSCE region. The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Désir, identified this topic – the role of free media in the comprehensive approach to security – as one of his four priorities at the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in September 2017: “My second priority will be to protect media freedom in the new security context….I fully support the efforts of governments to combat terrorism and create safer societies, but let me repeat this simple fact: there are ways to achieve these goals without compromising on our hard-fought fundamental freedoms.” Unfortunately, some governments in the OSCE region consider a free press to be a threat to national security, and worse, persecute or silence journalists in the name of the security. Certain governments and nationalists justify the censorship of journalists by labelling them unpatriotic, even enemies of the state.  Since the failed coup attempt Turkey, for example, hundreds of journalists have been arrested and media outlets shuttered on the basis of national security. The mere suspicion that citizens are part of the Gulenist movement – the group that the Turkish government blames for the coup attempt – can result in many years in prison, or even life sentences.  Journalists, as well as civil society as a whole, have been particularly targeted by terrorism-related charges. However, despite that freedom of expression and national security are often pitted against each other, the two are not mutually exclusive – in fact, they are complementary. An independent, free, and pluralistic media can play a role in peacebuilding and conflict prevention, countering prejudices or misperceptions, and preventing extremism and radicalization. Still, in a world where terrorists spread radical ideas, prejudiced organizations perpetuate intolerance, and government-sponsored bots disseminate misinformation, the tension between freedom of expression and national security seems greater than ever.   The conference featured three sessions: the first, on free media as a basis for European security; the second, on the role of the media in peacebuilding and conflict prevention; and the third, on the role of media in counteracting disinformation, “hate speech” and radicalization. Panelists and participants present discussed the tension between freedom of expression and security interests, the pressures independent media faces from this tension, and best practices for governments to uphold free media and expression commitments in this context. The OSCE takes a comprehensive approach to security, subscribing to the idea that political-military security, human rights, and economic governance are mutually reinforcing ideals. It is important to encourage dialogue on best practices to ensure that participating States remain true to the ideals that the OSCE was founded upon, despite sometimes challenging circumstances.

By Bob Hand, Policy Advisor      The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE PA) held its 16th annual Autumn Meeting in Andorra la Vella (the capital of the principality of Andorra) from October 3 to October 5, 2017. During the meeting, approximately 180 parliamentarians from among the 57 OSCE participating States – including Austrian parliamentarian and Assembly President Christine Muttonen – focused on “new challenges” and “new tasks” in regional security in formal sessions, on migration and counterterrorism in separate committee sessions, and on disability rights and human rights in occupied regions of Georgia in two separate side events. Other sessions at the event reviewed Assembly work since the July Annual Session in Minsk, Belarus, and discussed the possibilities for reforming the Assembly to make it a more effective OSCE institution.      The Assembly’s Autumn Meetings are geared toward dialogue, and permit the parliamentarians to gather at least once between the early July Annual Sessions and the late February Winter Meetings. Although ongoing work in Washington prevented Members of Congress from participating in the Assembly meeting, the United States was represented by Helsinki Commission staff. Sessions Devoted to Various Aspects of Security Andorra’s Prime Minister and parliament speaker both welcomed members of the OSCE PA, while other host country officials made presentations in the formal sessions.  OSCE officials also contributed to the discussions, including the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Director Ingibjorg Gisladottir of Iceland; the Secretariat’s Coordinator of Activities to Address Transnational Threats Rasa Ostrauskaite of Lithuania; and its Deputy Coordinator of Economic and Environmental Activities Ralf Ernst of Germany. OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Secretary General Roberto Montella of Italy reported on the Secretariat’s activity in recent months, while German parliamentarian and OSCE PA Treasurer Doris Barnett reported on the Assembly’s financial situation. In the formal sessions, a discussion of Mediterranean affairs focused on current issues including cooperation to counter terrorist threats and respond to migration challenges. New risks to security that come with the technologies of the cyber age, and the development of common responses to those risks, dominated the next formal session, with parliamentarians sharing country experiences. Regarding the climate change debate, there was nearly universal support for adherence to the Paris Agreement and the development of renewable energy sources, with most speakers emphasizing the dangerous implications of policies which maintain the status quo.  Discussion of education issues highlighted the contribution that knowledge and experience can make in promoting tolerance, countering extremism and reconciling societies divided by recent conflict among today’s youth. Work on the Sidelines Ad Hoc Committees formed under the auspices of the OSCE PA also met to develop plans for further activity.  The committee dealing with migration, led by Swiss parliamentarian Filippo Lombardi, finalized a report that was then presented to the governments of the participating States on October 10.  The report counters arguments that migration is solely a burden and stresses the need for all countries to share responsibility for large migration and refugee flows. The report also stresses that responses to migration must include actions to address its root causes, particularly in the case of forced displacement of large numbers of people. This very active committee also discussed a proposed calendar of future activities, including visits to key countries in the hope of gathering information that might provide useful to others. The committee focusing on efforts to counter terrorism, led by Greek parliamentarian Makis Voridis, held its inaugural meeting in Andorra; it was created by the OSCE PA in July 2017.  Participants offered their thoughts on what the Assembly and parliamentarians can contribute to the international response to terrorism, which included an emphasis on countering radicalization and violent extremism as well as sharing experiences and harmonizing legislation to make it more effective.  New members were added to committee ranks, and a plan for future activity, starting with a visit to OSCE headquarters in Vienna, was developed. In addition to these meetings, a subcommittee that focuses on the Assembly’s rules of procedure and reform of its practices met under the leadership of the United Kingdom’s Lord Peter Bowness. After adopting two packages changing procedures since 2013, the subcommittee remained open to further changes but concluded, based on a paper prepared by Lord Bowness, that broader and more radical reforms were needed to make the Parliamentary Assembly more relevant and effective.  Some ideas were discussed, but the discussion is likely to be ongoing and will need to be widened to garner the support for changes to current practices. The delegation of Finland hosted a side event on persons with disabilities and focused on encouraging parliamentary participation, featuring a young Serbian parliamentarian who is confined to a wheelchair. The delegation of Georgia hosted a second side event, which discussed the human rights challenges associated with Russia’s occupation of the country’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Tskhinvali) regions.  Both events were well attended and welcomed for providing even more focused and less constrained discussion than the formal sessions of the meeting. Developments in Neighboring Catalonia The Autumn Meeting took place in the aftermath of the October 1 referendum on independence organized in the Spanish autonomous community of Catalonia. Most OSCE PA participants traveled to Andorra from Barcelona, the Catalonian capital, bringing their direct attention both to the referendum itself and to the actions of law enforcement dispatched by Madrid in an effort to block it. The referendum raised two separate issues that were discussed by the parliamentarians in Andorra. The first was the legitimacy of the effort in the context of the right to self-determination, and the second was the right to freely associate and express one’s views, regardless of whether the result would be recognized officially in any fashion. Madrid’s response was clear; the referendum had been declared illegal in a court ruling and had no status. Still, the degree of force used by police was considered by several speakers at the OSCE PA meeting to be not just excessive but a violation of the basic human rights of participating citizens. On October 4, 2017, OSCE PA President Muttonen spoke publicly from Andorra on the Catalonian events, urging “constructive dialogue and respect for the rule of law by all in Spain” and that “all the authorities to use due restraint and proportionality when enforcing the law.” Future OSCE PA Activity        While its leadership will convene for a day-long session in Vienna on the eve of the annual meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, the next OSCE PA meeting open to all 323 parliamentarians will be the Winter Meeting on February 22 and 23, 2018, also in Vienna.  Next year’s Annual Session is slated for Berlin from July 7 to 11, and the next Autumn Meeting will be held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (dates to be determined). In between the meetings, parliamentarians hope to observe upcoming elections under OSCE PA auspices, and participate in other gatherings, including OSCE events, as part of the ongoing effort to strengthen security and cooperation in the OSCE region.                                 

As part of its broad mandate to combat trafficking in human beings, the OSCE Office on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) brought together 100 representatives of participating States, international organizations, and civil society to discuss “Rights of the Child: Children in Situations of Risk” at the annual OSCE Human Dimension Seminar in Warsaw, Poland, on October 11-12, 2017.  Opened by Ambassador Christian Strohal, Special Representative for the OSCE 2017 Austrian Chairmanship; Jacek Czaputowicz, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Poland; and Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, Director of ODIHR/OSCE, the seminar examined threats to children from incarceration and from human trafficking, as well as solutions.  Deprivation of Liberty Speakers addressed common myths surrounding the incarceration or detention of children using the totality of research on actual impact, and suggested means of mitigating harm.  Panelists agreed that detention should be the option of last resort and be for the least amount of time possible in order to avoid the well-documented negative effects on children.  Drawing on research, Ms. Michaela Bauer, the UNICEF Regional Partnership Manager, highlighted that detention does not in fact benefit the child but causes educational deficits, low social skills, and disrupted family ties—setting the child up for future failures and insecurity.  Ms. Bauer explained that deprivation of liberty is too often based on incorrect determinations that a child is a threat to themselves or to society.  She cautioned that detention is often 80 percent more expensive than alternate means, such as custodial family care.   She also addressed the myth that detention keeps the child from absconding, explaining that it is the fear of detention that makes children abscond.    Mr. Azamat Shambilov, Regional Director of Penal Reform International’s office in Central Asia, underscored that detention creates isolation, marginalization, and life-long stigmatization of children.  For instance, an educational diploma from a prison will haunt the child for life.  In addition, a child isolated in an institution from the love and support of family may suffer feelings of rejection.  Such children emerge from detention and seek out other children who have similarly suffered, and thus often find themselves in trouble again.  Mr. Shambilov suggested seeing the children as victims in need of care rather than criminals to be punished as, very often, the children who commit crimes have themselves been victims of crime. Ms. Roza Akylbekova, Deputy Director, Kazakhstan International Bureau of Human Rights and Rule of Law, highlighted the importance of keeping the child connected to family. If a child must be institutionalized, it is critical to ensure that the institution is close to family who can visit the child. A better alternative would be non-custodial sentences for crimes committed by children—in which case the child would live at home with his or her family for the duration of the sentence. Human Trafficking of Children At the conference, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe staff, accompanied by Italian trafficking survivor and activist Cheyenne de Vecchis and Dr. Maia Rusakova, Co-founder and Director of the Regional Non-Governmental Organization of Social Projects in the Sphere of Populations’ Well-being in Russia, presented practical steps to limit the risks of internet misuse for the trafficking of children.   Citing a growing body of research in the OSCE region on the links between children’s unrestricted access to pornography on the Internet and experience or perpetration of sexual exploitation, Commission staff encouraged participating States to consider working with the private sector to institute age verification technology for all access to online pornography, such as the system currently being implemented in the UK. Turning to the issue of children advertised online for sexual exploitation, Commission staff shared new technology developed by the U.S. non-governmental organization, THORN.  This technology saves law enforcement thousands of hours by intelligently filtering the thousands of new photos, phone numbers, emojis, gibberish, and acronyms on adult-services classified-ad websites each day—collating for law enforcement attention the advertisements that have indicators of human trafficking.  The Spotlight tool connects overlapping information for law enforcement, showing officers other cities in which a victim has been previously advertised and other information that can help officers investigate.  The Spotlight tool also provides a way for law enforcement in other jurisdictions to mark whether they are working on the leads, and who to contact for collaboration—innovations saving thousands of hours of work, dead ends, and duplicated efforts. In just the last three years, more than 6,300 trafficking victims have been identified in the United States with the Spotlight tool—nearly 2,000 of whom were children.  More than 2,000 traffickers were also identified.  While primarily developed in and for North America, the Spotlight tool could be easily adapted for other OSCE participating States. ODIHR’s Anti-Trafficking Mandate ODIHR enjoys a robust mandate embodied in multiple ministerial decisions and the 2003 OSCE Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings (as well as its Addendum in 2013) to combat human trafficking in the OSCE region, and has a full-time staff person specifically to carry out ODIHR’s anti-trafficking mandate.  For instance, ODIHR is tasked by the 2003 Action Plan with promoting the cooperation of law enforcement and civil society to combat human trafficking.  The 2003 Action Plan also calls on ODIHR to work with the OSCE Strategic Police Matters Unit (SPMU) on anti-trafficking training materials for law enforcement.  In addition, ODIHR has a mandate to offer legislative input to participating States, including on the development of National Anti-Trafficking Plans of Action.    While the 2014 regular budget shortfalls saw the loss of three members of ODIHR’s anti-trafficking staff, one full-time position was restored in 2015.  ODIHR is now fully re-engaged on executing its mandate in the region, in coordination with the OSCE Special Representative and Coordinator for Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings. ODIHR is currently updating the National Referral Mechanism Handbook, which it originally created in 2004 to guide participating States on the development of coordination frameworks for state agencies and best practices to, along with civil society partners, ensure proper care of trafficking victims.   In 2017,  ODIHR staff members have visited Croatia, Georgia, the UK, and Poland to identify gaps and best practices for national referral mechanisms.  In addition, ODIHR is working in Central Asia and Mongolia to increase identification of trafficking victims and streamline aid to victims, as well as to strengthen coordination between state actors and civil society. Finally, ODIHR is working with the Strategic Policy Matters Unit in the Mediterranean region to offer participating States technical assistance for combatting human trafficking in mixed migration flows.

Dr. Terry Hopmann is one of few American academics who has followed the Helsinki Process as it developed over four decades from a multilateral conference of 35 countries dealing with Cold War divisions – the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe – to a regional organization of 57 countries confronting a broad range of challenges across its security, economic and human dimensions – today’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As well-acquainted with the intricacies of its institutional development as the diplomats who negotiated them, Hopmann also considers the Helsinki Process and its importance in the context of the broader development of European affairs and the U.S.-Russian relationship.  In his current capacity as Professor of International Relations and Conflict Management at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), based in Washington, DC, Hopmann not only introduces the OSCE to graduate students preparing for a career in international relations but also invites them to contribute to the intensive study of OSCE-related hot spots, including through field visits to areas such as Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.  Focusing especially on security issues, Dr. Hopmann frequently interacts with the Helsinki Commission, both at OSCE-organized meetings in Europe and at Commission-organized briefings and hearings in Washington. In light of the numerous challenges the OSCE currently faces, including Russia’s markedly aggressive behavior and fears of an eroding U.S. commitment to European security and cooperation, Helsinki Commission staff recently sought Hopmann out to discuss the utility of the Helsinki Process in the past, and the interplay of U.S., Russian and European interests through the OSCE today and into the future. The OSCE’s Value Hopmann asserts in no uncertain terms that “OSCE membership is very beneficial for the United States.”  The organization has made major contributions to defusing conflicts and increasing military transparency, Hopmann believes; he also underlines the need to keep in mind the organization’s role in the defense of human rights. “The OSCE’s defense of national sovereignty, minority rights, and other important socio-political freedoms, together help prevent or at least de-escalate conflict, and make escalation harder. We see this precise action with regards to Ukraine right now. There’s a lot of value in that,” he notes. “The OSCE remains important for the U.S. in promoting its interests abroad, and at relatively low cost,” Hopmann adds.  “Still, the OSCE needs more support. The United States has struggled to engage with multilateral organizations and this represents a major issue. Without permanent and knowledgeable diplomatic representation and without the guarantee of adequate funding and resources, the OSCE’s capacity to act is severely hindered, and we play a role in that. Furthermore, the fact that we do not have a permanent representative there at the moment devalues the OSCE in ways that are dangerous.” Hopmann calls for the United States to continue to “support the OSCE institutions and missions, help its fellow member states in their work at the OSCE, and not forget its commitment to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, nor lose sight of their significance.” In the past, the Helsinki Process made important contributions to stability and peace in Europe, Hopmann believes. The confidence-building measures developed through the Helsinki Process of the mid-1970s, in particular, “initiated the practice of international observation and greater transparency. As a result, states could now better distinguish military maneuvers and exercises from preparations for a surprise attack. In many ways this was the most important breakthrough during the Cold War, greatly reducing the risk for surprise attack from the Soviet Union. This anxiety was a root cause of the Cold War and animated the conduct of both Western and Eastern powers. Of course, there were the ideological arguments that influenced the political landscape, but in Europe, the fear of Soviet aggression was immense.” At the time these confidence-building measures were negotiated, the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 was still a vivid, recent memory. Hopmann also acknowledges the value of the other, non-military baskets of issues discussed in the Helsinki context. “The human rights basket was also important, though not as immediate,” he observes. “For the negotiators, this basket was less about human rights, but more about the promotion of human interaction. It was, effectively, an agreement to begin encouraging cultural and educational exchange.  In the shorter term, the first basket [on political-military issues] was critical, but in the longer term, the third basket [on human rights] became more important - particularly after the 1986 Stockholm agreement updated the CSBMs that were at the heart of Helsinki’s Basket 1. Then, following the Vienna Review Conference that concluded in early 1989, suddenly people were guaranteed the right to enter and leave their own country. Here, we see the first breach in the Iron Curtain when Hungary allowed people to cross freely into Austria – it didn’t all fall at once in 1989, rather it was a gradual process that started with a CSCE set of expanded principles. “ Hopmann considers the institutional development of the European security architecture in the post-Cold War period to have in many ways played out to the OSCE’s disadvantage.  Although initially successful in the 1990s with the deployment of field missions, successive U.S. administrations have missed an opportunity by viewing the OSCE as an organization principally relating to human rights concerns, rather than political-military security. “We missed the idea that NATO and the OSCE are not mutually exclusive,” he says “While we’ve contributed a lot to the OSCE, NATO remains the priority for policy makers in Washington. We have yet to realize how closely and effectively they can and should be working together. I believe this is our biggest foreign policy mistake since the end of the Cold War. It is the most effective way to bring Russia to the negotiating table and it is far easier to work with them in Vienna than the UN. The OSCE remains a security institution, like NATO, and as long as we value using all diplomatic measures to resolve conflict before using military force, we’re making a mistake by underutilizing the OSCE.” A growing European Union has not necessarily helped, Hopmann believes.  “The development of the E.U. has somewhat complicated the operation of the OSCE. Through the creation of its own common foreign and security policy and other initiatives, Brussels has duplicated OSCE institutions, but without the participation of the United States and Russia. Thus, the E.U. alone simply isn’t as effective,” he observes. “There is a lot of overlap between the two bodies and this begets structural and bureaucratic blockages that prevent action, especially when E.U. and OSCE representatives diverge or try to do the same thing independently. So, like OSCE-NATO relations, the E.U.’s relationship with the OSCE is occasionally marked by competition that hurts both parties’ effectiveness.” The View from Kremlin Walls Many of the earlier successes of the Helsinki Process were enabled by a very different leadership in Moscow than that we see today, Hopmann suggests. Under the late-Soviet leadership and Russian President Yeltsin, “there was a real interest to engage more with the West. They were, generally speaking, in support of Helsinki and didn’t view it as a threat to Russian interests,” he says. “That strongly contrasts with Putin. Putin has a totally different worldview and perceives the OSCE’s interests as inimical to Russian national priorities. We now find a much stronger, more belligerent Russia that no longer trusts the OSCE to help protect its interests, as it once did.”  This dynamic creates a real danger that Russia could turn away from the OSCE completely.  “The Kremlin could decide to leave as a result of domestic pressure or as a result of frustration with the West and its criticism. The Russians feel that they are attacked on all sides in the OSCE and obviously derive no joy from it,” Hopmann notes.    He therefore warns against outright rejection of all Russian concerns in the OSCE area, for instance as regards ensuring the protection of Russian-speaking populations in neighboring states.  “It is paramount that, in the spirit of Helsinki, we ensure Russian minorities are treated equally and fairly, to avoid perceived provocations by the West that might serve as a pretext for Russia to intervene. He suggests the closure of earlier OSCE missions in the Baltic states might have been perceived by Moscow, rightly or wrongly, as evidence that the OSCE was no longer responding to Russian concerns. Russia’s military occupation and subsequent illegal annexation of Crimea might have been averted, Hopmann asserts, had its view of the OSCE not evolved so dramatically from the first post-Cold War decade to the second.  While objecting to Kosovo’s bid for statehood based on core OSCE commitments regarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, even a decade ago Moscow was willing to engage diplomatically to resolve the issue. In the case of Crimea in 2014, it was not. “They prioritized military force over diplomacy – the precise kind of behavior the OSCE was designed to discourage,” Hopmann states.  He predicts that “while this decision may have been tactically effective, it will hurt Russia in the long run. The OSCE is designed to deal with these situations and it has the institutional framework to do so effectively – Russia failed to take advantage of the OSCE and we’re all now paying the price.” Still, Moscow recognizes that the OSCE is still valuable to Russian interests, according to Hopmann: “Russia wields a lot of influence in the OSCE because of their effective veto power under the consensus rule – indeed, the Kremlin recognizes the sway it carries in it and recognizes the OSCE as the place where it can effectively and discreetly negotiate with both the U.S. and the E.U. Ultimately, the OSCE is designed precisely to facilitate this kind of diplomatic interaction, and it meshes more closely with Putin’s view of how diplomacy should be conducted than the U.N. I believe it is for this reason that the Russians have been willing to work with the OSCE on some issues, including the conflict in Ukraine.” Effectively engaging Russia at the OSCE will remain a challenge, Hopmann adds, suggesting that a multilateral format may be useful.  “The most important question we face is how to continue the discussion and being firm with Russia when it blatantly violates OSCE norms as it did in Ukraine, without going overboard with our criticisms,” he says. “There are some countries, like Austria, Finland and Switzerland that are simply better at dealing with Russia, due to their past or current neutrality. Russia prefers to deal through them and likely finds it easier to appear to cooperate with them than working directly with the U.S.” On the OSCE’s Role in Conflicts The OSCE is demonstrating clear added-value in conflict areas today, according to Hopmann, including in and around Ukraine, and as regards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.  Hopmann praised the OSCE as having “played a key role in ensuring the [Ukraine] conflict does not escalate and cause more destruction. Indeed, within the limits of its mandate and available resource, the OSCE has done admirable work; however, this scope is limited and much remains to be done. Thus, the best thing the U.S. can do is to continue to support the OSCE’s mission and the Minsk process. It’s not ideal, but there’s no better option.”  Frustration over the OSCE’s inability to overcome the absence of political will to prevent or stop the conflict altogether should not overshadow its success in ascertaining the facts on the ground and galvanizing a defense of key principles guiding international behavior, he believes.  Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, Hopmann suggests that the OSCE has moderated what could otherwise be a much more intense conflict.  “The presence of the OSCE has helped already,” he says. “Its presence helped diffuse the four day war last year and prevented it from becoming a more violent conflict. Still, there is significant risk that the conflict will escalate and this highlights the importance of OSCE and the role it may play in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh question.” Hopmann believes that an alignment of U.S.-Russian interests in Nagorno-Karabakh, even if partial, may be helpful here.  “The OSCE absolutely has the mandate and ability to negotiate such a deal and to organize peace-keeping initiatives to ensure the conflict does not start up again. That being said, this process will be long, complicated, and expensive,” he predicts. The Future Hopmann concedes that the OSCE will remain beset for the foreseeable future with challenges largely emanating from the consensus-based decision-making process, over which any one country (including Russia) effectively has a veto.  However, he remains convinced that “that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue dialogue. In fact, we must continue dialogue. Many people remain committed to the OSCE and its values, including some Russian diplomats – though they’re keeping a low profile at the moment. This bodes well not only for change in the OSCE, but also for Russia. Change is not impossible, and keeping the dialogue channels open is of incredible importance. Without them, when the chance to encourage positive change does appear, we will not be able to capitalize on it. We worked together immediately after the Cold War to diffuse East-West tensions and ensure a peaceful Europe. There is no reason we cannot do that again.” Professor Hopmann was interviewed by Bob Hand and Alex Tiersky, Helsinki Commission Staff.