You also can be a part of it!
The world was very different in late July 1975, when 35 states—almost all the ones existing in Europe at the time, plus the United States and Canada—signed the Helsinki Final Act. The agreement aimed to establish a consensus-based framework that transcended the ideological divides of the Cold War and enabled the creation of a broad diplomatic platform with clear norms to promote security and cooperation among states: ten points that included respect for human rights (such as freedom of opinion, expression, and conscience), territorial integrity, the self-determination of peoples, non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, and a commitment to resolve disputes peacefully. Challenges have evolved over the past five decades, and the anniversary provides a good opportunity to reflect and draw some conclusions.
The Helsinki+50 Conference, held in Finland’s capital, brought together representatives from states and non-governmental organizations who, broadly speaking, agreed on many points. It is not difficult to reach consensus when looking back and recognizing achievements. Fifty years ago, even the repressive governments in Eastern Europe committed to respecting civil rights, and that signature gave rise to numerous organizations that gradually contributed to the fall of those regimes: Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia; Solidarity in Poland; Initiative for Peace and Human Rights in East Germany; and the various Helsinki Groups in the Soviet Union. Today, Europe is more democratic and freer than it was 50 years ago.
That agreement was not just about reaffirming respect for international law (after all, the ten points of Helsinki were already included in the United Nations Charter), but also about focusing on individuals and civil society. As Finnish President Alexander Stubb said 50 years after the signing: “The Yalta Conference, which took place near the end of World War II, was based on the idea of winners and losers, and on the spheres of interest of great powers. But Helsinki was not: cooperation had to be built on the principles of dialogue and mutual respect.” The paradigm was different, and the idea was to build bridges, not confront. So much so that the word “democracy” was not even mentioned at the time.
With the end of the Cold War, Helsinki led to the creation of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which today promotes dialogue, democratic practices, tolerance toward minorities, and provides technical assistance and impartial advice for establishing clear institutional norms within member states. It has also helped achieve stability in post-conflict settings in the Balkans and the Caucasus.
Yes, there have been achievements, but five decades later, the global landscape has changed dramatically. Whereas then the groundbreaking nature of the accords lay in beginning to understand security broadly—centered on citizens and their rights, not just the state—today this notion is being challenged. Security has reverted to being based on the projection of power over other countries, and the dilemma increasingly falls between Yalta and Helsinki. Traditional threats, those that seemed to have been overcome (or at least limited) in Europe, are returning now that an interstate war is underway in the heart of the continent following an invasion. New security threats have arisen: climate change, hybrid attacks, the use of artificial intelligence to spread disinformation, religious and political extremism, and the risks posed by mass migration. Moreover, as Kevin Casas Zamora, Costa Rican politician and director of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, points out, inequality threatens democracy because “we are witnessing an unprecedented concentration of unchecked power in private hands. This extreme situation forces us to consider extreme regulatory measures.”
The old Cold War ideological blocs have fragmented into numerous increasingly distant and incompatible spheres. Rules weaken, institutions lose influence, agreements unravel, conflicts erupt more frequently, dissatisfaction drives calls for radical change, and faith in past achievements weakens. In this uncertainty, it is no surprise that more and more people seek order, stability, and predictability—and believe they find answers in increasingly authoritarian positions.
At the same time, ad hoc bilateral agreements prevail over multilateralism, transactional dealings replace international norms, and double standards outweigh consistency in applying international law, while democracy appears under threat in more and more corners of Europe. Federico Borello, director of Human Rights Watch, emphasizes that the false dichotomies which lead to cutting social spending to increase defense budgets must be challenged. He recalls that “five members of the European Union, including Finland, have withdrawn from the historic international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines. This endangers their own civilians and others, not only during wartime.” As Feridun Sinirlioğlu, OSCE Chairperson, notes, “security cannot be guaranteed solely through military deterrence, because that leads to an arms race.”
So how to act in this changing scenario? Is the OSCE still relevant if it failed to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? What went wrong, where were the failures? Are the ten points from fifty years ago still valid now that instability predominates? The organization lacks enforcement power; it cannot punish those who violate its original mandates. It also cannot expel members, and Russia even holds veto power, which it has recently exercised. In this strange transitional phase, Helsinki faces growing criticism.
If the 1975 accords were based on dialogue between radically opposed positions, it is worth asking whether today it is worthwhile or necessary to maintain conversations with those who proudly break the commitments made half a century ago. This is not an easy debate. Should OSCE members have responded to Russian demands before Moscow invaded its neighbors? And if so, would that have prevented the deaths of thousands in Ukraine? Some might answer that a firm stance is needed, expelling from the dialogue table anyone who systematically violates human rights. But that could be counterproductive by removing any chance for change. Martin Palouš, a former dissident in then-Czechoslovakia, reminds us that “surely there are many Russians today in the same situation we in Charter 77 were in our time. We must help those Russians find their place at the international table.”
Questions abound and answers are few. Most conference speakers at Finland 2025 agree that the principles expressed 50 years ago must be upheld, that human rights remain essential, that dialogue is paramount, that individual and state security go hand in hand, and that conflict resolution must be peaceful. So how to ensure those ten points do not become mere empty words in the years to come, if they aren’t already? The problems of democracy cannot be solved through undemocratic means. And the OSCE itself, with its noble aspirations and undeniable achievements, today is constrained by political discord and a budget that has not been approved since 2021.
Can optimism still exist in this context? Ukrainian lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk, director of the Center for Civil Liberties and recipient of the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, offers an answer: without sidelining institutions, “we can still rely on individuals; ordinary people have more power than they imagine.” Civil society and the enthusiasm of younger generations, more interconnected than ever, can bring positive change—but the groundwork must be laid for new initiatives to emerge and thrive. Without freedom of action and institutional coherence, these debates will be of little use. And, of course, funding is necessary. For this reason, the 50th anniversary conference of the Helsinki Accords closed with the presentation of a new common fund to support such initiatives.
Today, as Finland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Elina Valtonen points out, enough humility is needed to recognize the magnitude of these major challenges, but also enough determination to know that it is still possible to make a difference. For that, OSCE leaders and civil society organizations must work together and take responsibility for combating violations of the principles signed half a century ago in that Nordic capital.
