Parliamentary Dialogue on the War in Ukraine: Navigating the In-between

A multitude of expectations, needs and concerns surrounding this war emerged. Together with an overwhelming feeling of uncertainty was the desire to learn more from other political perspectives and understand what shapes the positions of others on this war. Above all, there was a shared desire to keep the conversation going, as more interparliamentary exchange is seen as crucial to moving forward.

Below, we share with you an overview of some of the difficult conversations that arose during the dialogue, as well as proposals for further cooperation.

Disclaimer: The Open European Dialogue is a cross-party, cross-country dialogue platform for European politicians. These highlights do not represent the views of the Open European Dialogue, its partners, or its individual participants. They are a reflection of different conversations had within the context of the Open European Dialogue activities.

DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS

The dialogue was designed to emerge some difficult conversations surrounding policymakers’ challenges in handling the paradoxes of the ongoing war. The questions that were raised by participants touched upon a range of challenges.

1. What does a quick and yet sustainable peace look like? What are the long-term goals of the key players, and what does the future hold for Ukraine, Russia, the U.S. and the rest of the West? Will we see a second Iron Curtain in Europe, and where will it fall?
2. How will we handle the economic impacts of the war? How do we manage the deterioration of living standards across Europe? What is the price we put on freedom, and who is willing to pay it? How do we keep support for Ukraine strong among our citizens, who are increasingly preoccupied with the emerging energy and cost-of-living crises?
3. Can we protect and reinforce international cooperation and rules amidst growing perceptions of the West’s double standards? What will be the impacts of the war on an already deteriorating belief in multilateralism?
4. How can we control the spread of propaganda and fake news? How can we win against war fatigue if we are also confronted with constant disinformation? What can be done to strengthen Europe’s messaging surrounding the war?
5. Are we willing to talk about how the war will end? What does it look like to win? What are the steps that lead to peace? Who are the actors that will determine the process? Are we able to imagine the path towards a post-war scenario? While the word negotiation seems to be off the table, can there be space to safely raise questions surrounding a possible peace process?

YOUR PARLIAMENTARY INITIATIVES

Various cooperation opportunities were discussed. A selection of these is reported below. It is important to note that not all participants agreed with all the cooperation avenues and that these do not represent the views of the Open European Dialogue or its partners.

INTERPARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION PLATFORM TO ALIGN MESSAGING AND SHARE BEST PRACTICES ON THE WAR AGAINST UKRAINE
There is a need for more parliamentary cooperation surrounding responses to the Ukraine War. A neutral, politically balanced and facilitated channel could bring together members of national parliaments and the European Parliament. The platform would provide a sharing mechanism for relevant motions and resolutions — for example, the statements in support of Ukraine from the Parliament of Estonia or the Parliament of Latvia, to replicate messaging across other parliaments. The platform would aim to create a space for common narratives and common fact-checking, without being a mandatory consensus-building exercise.

YOUNG PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS TO VISIT UKRAINE
Organize the visit of delegations of young parliamentarians to Ukraine in order to raise awareness of the war and allow politicians to get a deeper understanding of the realities and needs in the country. The visit of the delegation would be organized in partnership with a local organization that would ensure the correct security protocols are followed. The Open European Dialogue could coordinate the recruitment of a diverse group across European parliaments, and the Civil Network OPORA could help shape the agenda.

BEST PRACTICE SHARING INITIATIVE ON FIGHTING RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA
Participants commit to gathering information on what is being done in their own countries in terms of countering Russian propaganda, and meet again via a virtual exchange to share and compare legislation and discuss possible next steps.

NEW STRATEGIES FOR HANDLING RUSSIAN ASSETS
Is it possible to explore legal instruments to repurpose seized Russian assets? These assets could be instrumental in providing support for refugees and for reconstruction purposes. Under the current legal frameworks, these assets are protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and otherwise unusable without creating a conflict under international law. The sharing of best practices for how to potentially make progress on this challenge is welcomed. Policymakers could learn from the experiences of other countries, such as Belgium and Poland, who seem to have found some working strategies to address the issue.

STRENGTHEN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION DIALOGUE FORA
The international community should find ways to work together in the face of this war. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly could be expanded exceptionally to include Brazil, India, China and the African Union to act as auditors. This could allow for a reinforcement of multilateralism while building a stronger voice and alliance in support of Ukraine.

KEEP ATTENTION ON THE WAR AND REINFORCE A CULTURE OF INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION VIA AN MP-CONSTITUENCY EXCHANGE
Organize an exchange between parliamentarians of different countries to visit the constituencies of other parliamentarians to speak about the war. This would serve to reinforce a sense of shared response and hence a culture of multilateralism, while also keeping the attention on the war by exploring the way it is being felt across the continent.

JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS
When talking about Ukraine in parliaments across Europe, including Ukrainian legislators in the conversation could ensure that Ukrainian perspectives are represented in the debate. The proposal would be to establish more interparliamentary sessions with the Ukrainian parliament and bring Kyiv closer to the ongoing discussion in different European capitals. Examples of this exist in the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Association Committee or the Interparliamentary Assembly of Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine. Such assemblies could especially be used to shape the agenda on reconstruction in Ukraine.

REFUGEE INTEGRATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAM
Providing immediate relief to the Ukrainian population and a concrete vision of a positive future for young Ukrainian refugees, notwithstanding their possible repatriation, a European refugee integration and education program could provide a tangible cooperation opportunity for European parliaments to work on together.

ADVANCING TOGETHER ON TRANSPARENCY AND CORRUPTION INITIATIVES
Preparedness for a possible accession of Ukraine to the EU could provide a concrete cooperation opportunity that can be initiated presently without needing to wait for the termination of the war. Efforts to begin reinforcing Ukraine’s legal frameworks and standards in terms of transparency and corruption could be pursued.

DIALOGUE ON ALTERNATIVE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO POLICYMAKERS TO ADVANCE THE PEACE PROCESS
Some participants share a concern over a lack of a safe space to discuss and share perspectives among parliamentarians about what an eventual path towards a peace process might look like and how, beyond military support, parliaments could support Ukraine, including through the use of diplomatic means.

PARLIAMENTARIANS TESTIMONIALS & INSIGHTS

The need for safe political dialogue spaces

“What you provide is unique. When we come here, we are able to speak to people who we don’t agree with, but do so without fighting. We can be friendly and polite, even if we have harsh disagreements, and that opens up the possibility for us to see that the other side might actually have a point.”

On greater parliamentary coordination on Ukraine

“At the meeting in Warsaw, we each had the task of raising a topic that we consider important and on which we would like to continue working and sharing our experiences with colleagues from other European parliaments. There were a lot of good ideas. For example, European parliaments should adopt resolutions like ours – that Russia is a terrorist. Or the Estonian one – that Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine. In short, if there is unanimity and consensus across the allies on such statements, they will carry much more weight. There is strength in unity, there is weakness in fragmentation.”

The need for political spaces that build understanding, not consensus

“I come here to learn why other people think the way they think. I will not necessarily agree, but I am interested in listening and better understanding what is informing the thinking of others about this war.”

“There is insufficient space for parliaments to work together on Ukraine. What we need is a space like this which is politically neutral, with an independent facilitator and a variety of diverse political voices represented. This is important because it allows us to be better informed about what others are doing, coordinate our responses when we can, but without having to necessarily agree on everything.”

KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING

The above initiatives are ideas and suggestions that were put forward during our workshop in Warsaw. The Open European Dialogue will provide a space to facilitate the potential advancement of a number of these initiatives, should there be an interest to do so, which is shared among network members.