Even after 50 years, the OSCE remains a unique platform for dialogue

On 27 May 2025, our FPS organised – in collaboration with the Egmont Institute – a debate on the future of the European security architecture on the occasion of the 50^th anniversary of the signature of the Helsinki Final Act. Because despite the crisis with Russia, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) remains a unique security agency for the Eurasian continent.

NATO is a widely discussed topic these days. After all, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has disrupted our dream of a safe Europe. But did you know the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) also plays a critical role in safeguarding Europe’s security? The OSCE aims to inspire dialogue, bridge differences, build trust and promote cooperation between countries. We have already extensively covered the functioning of the OSCE in a previous article.
 

Separate position

Within the world’s multilateral organisations – NATO, EU, UN… – the OSCE occupies a separate position. For instance, the OSCE is not a club of like-minded countries like NATO. The 57 Member States include, among other countries, the US, Russia, Belarus, the EU Member States, Ukraine and the Balkan and Central Asian countries. In other words, the OSCE also brings together countries that are at odds with one another. Moreover, all decisions are made by consensus.

The multidimensional approach is quite unique as well. Indeed, the OSCE assumes that several dimensions have to be satisfied to obtain genuine peace. For instance, in the politico-military field – the 1^st dimension – the organisation works toward greater openness, transparency and cooperation. Through all manner of treaties and agreements, it attempts to practice arms control and to ensure reciprocal transparency and, where practicable, safe storage and destruction of arms.

In addition, economy and ecology – the 2^nd dimension – constitute an essential element. The OSCE promotes good governance, fights corruption and encourages environmental awareness. Both the equitable distribution of natural resources and a healthy environment are stabilising factors. Because environmental problems can cause refugee flows that in turn disrupt societies.

In conclusion, human rights and fundamental freedoms – the 3^rd dimension – are at the forefront. Indeed, they are also the foundation of stable societies. The OSCE helps its participating states to build democratic institutions and to conduct fair and transparent elections. After all, if states function well, they will be less likely to enter into conflict with neighbouring countries. In addition, the OSCE formulated the gold standard for election observations.

Moreover, the Helsinki Act – that laid the foundation of the OSCE 50 years ago – contains 10 principles, such as the inviolability of frontiers, peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for the sovereignty of states.

50^th anniversary on a sad note

With the Helsinki+50 Conference taking place on 31 July in Finland, we commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the Helsinki Act. The celebration will, however, be tinged with a touch of sadness. After all, by invading Ukraine, Russia has violated all 10 principles of the Helsinki Act. In addition, the country withdrew from several arms control treaties. As a superpower, Russia seems to believe that it is less subject to regulations and can dominate smaller countries. The US also increasingly question the usefulness of partnerships and alliances.

But is the OSCE’s role played out? How should things proceed with the European security architecture in these turbulent times? To find answers to those questions, our FPS jointly organised a seminar on 27 May 2025. The audience consisted of experts, diplomats, military staff, academics, and some students.

We have outlined the main opinions expressed below. It must be stressed that the following is a compilation of viewpoints expressed during the debate, and does certainly not constitute an official Belgian position.
 

A more powerful Europe

There is no denying that the OSCE is experiencing a crisis. Not only because of Russian aggression, but also due to the lack of an approved budget since 2021. As a result, the organisation must rely too heavily on voluntary contributions.

Nonetheless, the OSCE still plays a significant role. The multidimensional approach has clearly proven its merit, and the 10 principles also remain a focal point for practically all the OSCE countries. We cannot make concessions on this issue. For instance, we cannot allow borders to be violated.

In the same spirit, it is important to strengthen Ukraine, oppose Russia, and expand Europe’s military strength. The EU must take its destiny into its own hands and become an important geopolitical actor in order to be taken seriously. Partnerships, however, remain crucial. The EU must only ensure that its partnerships are not considered as a cost, but rather as a net benefit.
 

Consensus as a constant

Still, Russia – and its loyal ally Belarus – will always remain our neighbours. That is why we will inevitably have to find a way to deal with them. To that effect, the OSCE remains an ideal platform as it allows dialogue on an equal footing. Keeping discussions going is vital, especially when things are difficult.

It is therefore entirely pointless to move away from the consensus rule within the OSCE. Because without that rule, an organisation such as the OSCE could never exist. If a majority of votes would suffice to reach decisions, Russia would leave the OSCE. And then, we would retreat within a group of like-minded countries, while the OSCE’s unique position precisely stems from its ability to engage in dialogue with non-like-minded countries. Only for less important matters related to day-to-day management, moving away from the consensus rule might be worth considering.
 

Attention for concerns?

As a partner, Russia is currently quite unreliable, and it is probably not interested in having genuine discussions. Yet some people believe that we need to be attentive to the country’s concerns in order to facilitate a rapprochement. For instance, Russian policymakers see the so-called ‘colour revolutions’ in Ukraine and Georgia as threatening, or even as a Western offensive that may weaken their position. The question is obviously to what degree such a stance can be seen as understandable.

We can manage or reduce tensions to a certain extent by way of arms control or confidence-building measures. Transparency – however one-sided it may be – can contribute to stability. Any opponent needs to be made aware of possibly unintentional consequences of their actions. Moreover, the refusal of Russia and Belarus to openly question the 10 principles – despite their violation of them – is a plus point.
 

A great deal of patience

So we will have to be very patient, but that is also part of the OSCE’s tradition. For example, the preparations of the Helsinki act of 1975 had already started at the end of the 1960s, while its impact only became clear in the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, it then became apparent that the ideas concerning human rights and free information exchange had an undeniable influence on civil society and human rights defenders within the former East bloc. Therefore, the discussions we are having now, will possibly only have an effect in a couple of decades as well.

We are currently experiencing a period of instability – similar to the start of the Cold War – with uncertain borders. This is why we need an OSCE 2.0 that can also deal with current global challenges, whilst also appealing to today’s youth. Those challenges include climate disruption, cybersecurity, fake news, election interference through TikTok, new forms of warfare involving drones, etc.

Once the arms in Ukraine are silenced, the OSCE will be ready to go on site and to commit to reconstruction. Elsewhere, the OSCE will keep focusing on conflict prevention or management as in the Caucasus (Armenia and Azerbaijan) and Moldova (Transnistria). Greater importance can also be attached to demining, recognising that Ukraine has the most landmines in the world. Besides, our country has a lot of expertise in that field.

The seminar jointly organised by our FPS enabled the exchange of different viewpoints through dialogue, which was particularly useful in the run-up to the 50^th commemoration of the Helsinki Act in Finland. Obviously, our country will also participate in the Helsinki+50 Conference this summer. In doing so, it wants to contribute to the Finnish reflection on the future of the OSCE.