With the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev’s reformist policies in the Soviet Union, the Helsinki Commission’s work began to take new directions. The Soviet government released political prisoners and allowed emigration. The overall level of repression diminished. In 1988, a bipartisan Congressional Helsinki Commission delegation led by Commission Chairmen Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) traveled to Moscow. The delegation met with Soviet officials and facilitated meetings with leading dissidents in the USSR that included Soviet Jews, Ukrainians, Balts and religious rights activists. A year later, facilitated by the commission, a high-level Soviet delegation visited the United States to discuss human rights. These things would have been unheard of a few years earlier. At the same time, we continued to press the Soviets when necessary as human rights violations did not disappear altogether.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the triumph of democratic movements, especially in Poland, led to the rapid demise of Soviet control over Eastern Europe. The commission welcomed and encouraged these democratic transformations, as well as moves toward greater freedom and self-determination among the Soviet republics, especially the Baltic states and Ukraine, where pro-independence movements were strongest. Commission staff began to observe elections in Eastern Europe and the Soviet republics, publishing reports on the quickly changing landscape. Mind you, public reports by U.S. government agencies about the Soviet Republics, including Ukraine, were exceedingly rare at the time.
Helsinki commissioners were also leaders within Congress in calling for U.S. recognition of the independence of Ukraine and other Republics. The 1991 resolution on Ukrainian independence received strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and House despite the administration’s objections, given its more cautious approach.
With the demise of the Soviet empire, the Helsinki process stemming from the 1975 Final Act became more institutionalized. The 35-nation Conference on Security on Cooperation evolved (eventually) into the 57-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), expanding its focus on democracy, including free and fair elections, rule of law and minority rights.
The commission also adapted to meet the post-Cold War era. Commission staff observed elections and supported democratic change in former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries. Human trafficking, treatment of minorities (such as Roma), anti-corruption and anti-kleptocracy were among the “new” challenges that became – and remain – a commission focus.
During the 1990s, the commission became the leading voice in Congress related to conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Through hearings, congressional and staff visits, legislation and other activities, the commission advocated for more resolute U.S. and international policies in response to aggression and countless atrocities committed predominantly by Serb forces during the Bosnian war (1992-1995), but also in Croatia and Kosovo.
The commission tentatively welcomed inklings of democratic reforms and greater rights in the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin, but that was marred by Russia’s appalling human rights abuses during its war on Chechnya, which the commission called attention to and resolutely condemned.
Some post-Soviet countries experienced greater freedom and democracy – even if the path was not always a smooth one. The commission engaged and supported these countries, while not shying away from calling out shortcomings. Take Ukraine, for instance. The commission highlighted the country’s positives, such as peaceful transitions of power, political pluralism and respect for minority and religious rights, and it encouraged greater U.S assistance to both the government and civil society. At the same time, we did not shy away from calling out the Ukrainian government for corruption and attacks on journalists in the years leading up to the 2004 Orange Revolution, and, then again, during the Yanukovych years (2010-2014).
Of course, countries that have persistently and egregiously flouted human rights and democratic norms, such as Russia (especially after Russian President Vladimir Putin came into power in 2000), Belarus and Central Asian countries, received considerable commission criticism. This scrutiny, expressed through legislation, hearings, statements and meetings, was often met with hostility by these repressive regimes. Take Belarus, which few others in Washington paid much attention to other than the commission. An example of the Belarusian dictator Alyaksandr Lukashenka regime’s dissatisfaction was not permitting me (who was the staffer responsible for Belarus) and a commission colleague in 2006 to enter the country as official international election observers despite interventions on our behalf by the State Department and the 56-nation OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
Russia’s assault on Georgia in 2008 and deepening domestic repression did not go unnoticed by the commission, as exemplified by Commission Chairman Sen. Ben Cardin’s (D-Md.) groundbreaking Magnitsky Act of 2012. The 2014 annexation of Crimea and aggression in the Donbas, which violated every single one of the 10 founding principles of the Helsinki Final Act as well as numerous other international agreements, was met with a vigorous commission response. These included hearings calling for more U.S. assistance to Ukraine, sanctions legislation, resolutions at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and other initiatives.
The commission’s response skyrocketed after Russia’s full-scale 2022 invasion and ongoing aggression, war crimes and genocide, which have become the commission’s top priorities. Commission leaders, such as Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) (until his retirement in 2025), Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) have been sponsors and supporters of legislation to provide military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, hold Russia accountable with expanded and tightened sanctions, for instance clamping down on Russia’s shadow fleet. Commissioners have been at the forefront of legislative frameworks advocating for the seizure and repurposing of sovereign Russian assets frozen in Western banks to fund Ukraine’s defense, recovery and long-term reconstruction. They have also led legislative efforts on Russia’s persecution of Christians in the occupied territories and on labeling Russia’s actions in Ukraine, such as the abduction of children and systemic civilian attacks, genocide.
Moreover, the commission has held numerous hearings and public briefings on a wide range of war-related topics: These include Russia’s war crimes and holding Russian officials to account, Russia’s abduction and Russification of Ukrainian children, the role of military assistance to help Ukraine and liberate its people, Russia’s imperial identity, Russian violations of religious rights in Ukraine and Russia’s ecocide in Ukraine. Recent briefings have included more specific topics such as the military importance of Ukrainian-held territory in the Donbas (the fortress belt) and Russia’s Tech Authoritarianism on the Occupied Territories of Ukraine, which evaluated how occupation authorities implement tech-enabled governance, surveillance networks and digital censorship to control populations in eastern Ukraine.
Throughout its 50-year history, the commission has been the main driver of Congressional Ukraine activity, including during the 35 years (1981-2017) when I was the lead staffer on Ukraine. But commission engagement has never been more necessary than in the past four and a half years. I am confident that the commission will continue its focus until Russia stops waging its unjust, bloody war against Ukraine and there is a durable, just peace.
The commission’s unique composition as an independent agency has allowed it to work closely with not only the Senate and House but also with the Executive branch, especially the State Department. Commission staff contributed to the formulation and execution of U.S. OSCE policy through its participation in U.S. delegations to various OSCE meetings. One important example has been the staff’s active role from the early 1990s in the annual Warsaw OSCE Human Dimension Meetings, which are Europe’s largest human rights and democracy conferences. The commission has also been active in other international venues, especially with the 56-country OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, and as international election observers to well over 100 elections in the OSCE region (including over 30 across nine countries that this former staffer had the opportunity to observe).
There is much more I could write about the Helsinki Commission, but let me just offer one concluding thought: Throughout the last 50 years, there has thankfully been a fairly solid substantive consensus – whether among Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals – when it comes to advancing what I would often call “the mission of the Commission.” Even in these times of excessive partisanship and polarization, the promotion of genuine security encompassing respect for human rights and human dignity, fundamental freedoms and democratic norms and values remains at the core of the commission’s identity and its work.
Author: Orest Deychakiwsky
