At the time this article was published
Jack Silverstone was a lawyer in the Law and Government Division of the
Research Branch of the Library of Parliament.
The Helsinki Final Act signed by 35 Nations
in August 1975 touched off a phenomena virtually unique among international
conventions. In various East European countries, Helsinki "watch
committees" were established. The Helsinki human rights provisions became
the focal point for much of the dissident movement within the Soviet bloc.
Human rights activists monitored implementation of the Act within their
countries and published and protested vehemently when breaches occurred. Their
governments responded with various forms of repressive measures in order to
control these manifestations. A sympathetic reaction in the West produced a
number of Helsinki-monitoring groups, including the American Commission on
Security and Co-operation in Europe. In Canada, many concerned
parliamentarians, both senators and MPs representing all Canadian political
parties, banded together on an ad hoc basis to form the Canadian Parliamentary
Helsinki Group. This article looks at the provisions of the Helsinki agreement
and examines activities of the Canadian Group.
The document that was signed and given life
in Helsinki in August of 1975 was an expression of broad principles for power
bloc coexistence. The Final Act is divided into three, or in the view of some,
four divisions or "baskets", as they are commonly referred to. The
obvious vulnerability to arcane humour in using this latter nomenclature did
not deter the jargonists who have fully legitimized the use of the term along
with a number of other catchwords and acronyms associated with the document.
The first basket deals with security
questions in Europe. After a long, repetitive preamble setting forth general
statements hailing the value of peace and security in the European theatre, the
text goes on to establish a number of fundamental principles such as refraining
from the threat or use of force in trans-national relations, and a call for the
peaceful settlement of disputes. Two controversial provisions establish the
inviolability of frontiers and the territorial integrity of states. The much
contested non-intervention in internal affairs clause is also contained in this
basket. In addition, a significant section calling for respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms including freedoms of thought, conscience, and religion
is included. From the Western perspective, the call for inviolability of
frontiers had the unattractive effect of confirming the post-World War II
boundaries of Soviet conquests in Eastern Europe, while the non-intervention in
internal affairs provision has often been used by the Soviets to rebut
criticism of their national policies. On the plus side, article VI of Basket I,
the human rights provision, has often been raised against the Soviets and their
allies with respect to their treatment of political and religious dissidents.
The Act then goes on to speak of
confidence-building measures, the common abbreviation being CBM's, which call
for notification of major military manoeuvres, an exchange of military
observers and, generally, for the lessening of military tension in Europe
through what has been described as increased transparency of intentions and
objectives.
The second basket or division deals with
economic matters as well as science, technology, and the environment. Signatory
states are called upon to facilitate business contacts and to increase the
exchanges of economic and commercial information. Industrial co-operation is
urged and enhanced co-operation in areas such as agriculture, energy and
transportation is extolled. Similar calls for concurrence on environmental
issues are made in the document.
The third major basket which has always been
of capital importance for the Western signatory states and for the dissident
movement in Eastern Europe deals with co-operation in humanitarian areas. The
nitty gritty of the provisions in this area are prefaced by stirring, albeit
somewhat clich6d statements expressing an alleged communality of values with
regard to the human condition in the political, legal and social context. The
text itself speaks of reunification of families, facilitating of travel between
states, an exchange of information and enhancement and circulation of data in
various fields. The media are not excluded and improvements in journalistic
working conditions are provided for in the text. Also called for are
co-operative exchanges in the fields of culture, education and science.
A fourth division which actually precedes
the human rights basket contains general statements with respect to matters of
security and co-operation in the Mediterranean area. Although it is basically a
statement of principles regarding good neighbourly relations and environmental
concerns, this mini-basket has, to a certain extent, been the wedge with which
the door to a Pandora's box of Middle East questions of the most cantankerous
nature has been pried open. The constant deposition of these issues has been
particularly effected by one or two surrogate European or quasi-European
countries pursuant to the financial hegemony of certain littoral Mediterranean
oil states.
The Act closes with a call for follow-up
conferences to discuss the implementation of the agreement. It also
specifically predetermined that a meeting for this purpose was to be held at
Belgrade in 1977.
Foundation of the Canadian Parliamentary
Helsinki Group
The Canadian Parliamentary Group was
established on July 14, 1977 after a meeting of interested representatives of
both Houses of Parliament. Under the direction of its first chairman, the Honourable
Robert Stanbury, then the MP for York-Scarborough, and formerly Minister of
National Revenue, and a steering committee comprising both senators and members
of the House of Commons, the Group set to work. The stated aims of the Canadian
Parliamentary Helsinki Group are to study, discuss and keep up-to-date on
developments relating to the Helsinki Final Act and the Conference on Security
and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) process, as Well as to function as a sounding
board and processor of public and parliamentary opinion on the topic.
The Canadian parliamentarians' concern with
the issues raised by the Helsinki Final Act is neither circuitous nor ethereal.
Many MP's have as their constituents persons of East European heritage who are
vitally concerned about the wellbeing of family members in these countries. An
even more pragmatic preoccupation of a number of such Canadians is the issue of
family reunification. This problem is categorically raised in the Final Act and
is a matter of some significance in Canada's relations with several East
European states. It Is also an area that Involves the efforts of Canadian
parliamentarians.
Beyond the powerful humanitarian clarion
sounded by the terms of the Final Act. Canadian legislators, and indeed all
Canadians, have vital national and global interests that are inextricably
connected with the European theatre. Peaceful relations and increased
co-operation can produce tangible benefits to Canadians in the economic and
cultural spheres, while the need to avoid cataclysmic war is too obvious to
require discussion here. Thus, the issues associated with the Helsinki Final
Act are most definitely within the purviem of Canada's MP's and senators.
The Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group
with its ad hoc character, as well as its objective of involving as many
parliamentary representatives as possible, adopted the practice of forwarding
notices of its meetings to all, MP's and senators inviting universal
attendance. In response, a relatively modest number of parliamentarians formed
a core group of regular participants. The Law and Government Division of the
Library of Parliament's Research Branch, as well as the Parliamentary Centre
for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade have provided vital organizational,
secretarial, and consultative services for the Group. Officers from these two
organizations attend most meetings.
The Group began holding meetings for the
purposes of taking testimony from various Eastern European and political and
religious dissidents and their representatives. The Group also met with
organizations of concerned Canadians, many of whom were of cast European
heritage, who presented briefs on thorny, issues such as family reunification
and the activities of embassy and consular officers of Soviet bloc states in
Canada. The ad hoc committee also embarked on a close liaison program with
officials of the Department of External Affair's who are connected with the
Helsinki negotiating process. These officials, up to and including the
ambassadorial level, provide valuable insights, particularly in relation to
negotiating strategy and tactics.
The Belgrade Review Conference began in the
fall of 1977. Long and arduous negotiations led to a rather anticlimactic
conclusion; the only visible result was a rather innocuous communique
indicating little more than the fact that the Review Conference had in fact
been held. Negotiations were tough and agreement was virtually impossible on
many, if not most issues. Canadian parliamentarians from both the House and
Senate observed and participated in the Belgrade session. Problems of
consistency dogged the Canadian parliamentary delegation in that most were only
able to be present for a short time on a rotating non partisan basis.
In the wake of the Belgrade Conference, many
Canadian organizations expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the outcome
and were critical of Canadian negotiating tactics. The Parliamentary Helsinki
Group was and is deeply concerned about choosing the appropriate negotiating
style in order to achieve the objectives which all the Canadian participants
seek, particularly with respect to the human rights provisions of the Helsinki
Final Act. However, the controversy over so-called quiet diplomacy as opposed
to a more strident approach which would lead to a certain level of
confrontation became a dominant theme during many Group meetings. particularly
where non government organs were involved.
The Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group
continued its initiatives after the Belgrade Conference under the chairmanship
of the Honourable Martin O'Connell. The duties of Group chairmanship were then
taken over by Mr. Charles Caccia, Member of Parliament for the Toronto riding
of Davenport following the appointment of Mr. O'Connell to the Cabinet in
November 1978. The deputy chairmanship has been exercised by Senator Paul
Yuzyk.
The pace of Group activities was temporarily
lessened by the two federal elections that took place in 1979 and 1980.
However. upon the reconvening of Parliament after the February 1980 election,
the Group met to reassert its commitment to continue in its efforts,
particularly with an eve to the next review conference to be held in the fall
of 1980 in Madrid. To this end, and under the continued chairmanship of Mr.
Caccia, the Group undertook a series of seminars in association with the
Department of External Affairs. It held discussions with leading academics and
government officials in order to prepare parliamentarians who might be in
attendance at the Madrid conference, as well as those generally, interested in
the subject matter.
In July 1980. an interesting offshoot of the
Helsinki process with regard to parliamentarians occurred when External Affairs
minister Mark MacGuigan announced the formation of a House of Commons
subcommittee on Security and Co-operation in Europe in preparation for the
Madrid meeting. The subcommittee is chaired by Mr. Caccia but it is a distinct
body from the Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group. The vice-chairman is Mr.
Robert Gourd. While the subcommittee is a creature of the Commons there has
been provision for senatorial input. Senators Yuzyk, Haidasz and Bosa in
particular have been active and regular participants. This formal subcommittee
of the Standing Committee of External Affairs and National Defence undertook an
extensive series of hearings to obtain testimony, from various sources
concerning various aspects of the CSCE process. The subcommittee has also
solicited briefs from concerned groups and individuals who have a direct
interest in The Helsinki Agreement. It is interesting to note that the purview
of both the subcommittee and the Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group has
recently been expanded to examine not only the human rights basket of the
Helsinki Final Act, but also particularly in view of changing international
climate has delved into the problems of East-West economic relations as well as
questions associated with disarmament and the reduction of military tensions.
The substantive sessions of the Madrid
Review Conference began in November, and Canadian parliamentarians have again
been participants at the meeting alongside the permanent delegation from the
Department of External Affairs. As at Belgrade most MP's and Senators have only
been able to attend the negotiations for brief time periods. Again these
delegates have been chosen from all three political parties represented in the
House of Commons. The Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group has, and will
undoubtedly continue to play an important role in ensuring that
parliamentarians will be prepared for the difficult tasks involved in
attempting to ensure the application of' the terms and the spirit of the
Helsinki Final Act in all its aspects. The subcommittee of the Standing
Committee of External Affairs and National Defence will probably not continue
beyond the Madrid Review Conference since its terms of reference are confined
to preparatory and inquiry duties in relation to that meeting. However, the
Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group will undoubtedly persist in its efforts
beyond Madrid with regard to the many difficulties associated with Helsinki
Final Act implementation monitoring. The Group will continue to be a primary
informational instrument for legislators as well as a focal point for input by
many non governmental organizations.