As European security architecture turns 50, we need dialogue and leadership

As a child growing up in Finland during the Cold War, I was always keenly aware of the precarious state of international relations – how one miscalculation or provocation could have enormous impacts on the lives of everyone I care about.

Sharing a 1,340-kilometre border with the Soviet Union, our proximity to the West’s adversary played a significant role in shaping our policies, much of which consciously sought to avoid antagonising our larger, more powerful neighbour.

We maintained a position of strict neutrality, avoided joining NATO or other Western military alliances, and often limited public criticism of Soviet policies and influence.

Some Western leaders criticised Finland for this stance, but it seemed to be the best – perhaps only – option for us at the time. While it may have limited our ability to speak freely, it also enabled us to act as an honest and trusted broker, leading in the early 1970s to the “Helsinki process,” a grand experiment in dialogue and de-escalation.

As part of the wider efforts of détente to promote international security and rein in the excesses of the Cold War, world leaders embarked on one of the greatest dialogue processes of the 20th century.

With Helsinki playing a central role as the host and facilitator of these historic talks, a series of difficult negotiations and agreements under the umbrella of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe ultimately produced the Helsinki Accords in August 1975.

Also known as the Helsinki Final Act, it was a document of enduring historical significance that was the crown jewel of an era of increasing understanding and dialogue, even among adversaries. Eventually, the opening created by this process contributed to the fall of oppressive governments in Eastern Europe.

What made this achievement all the more remarkable was the geopolitical backdrop, which, to say the least, was not promising: there was war in Vietnam, the war in the Middle East, oil shocks resulting in price increases of some 300-400%, and American leadership rocked by a scandal that brought down a president.

Malaise and disillusionment were setting in across the West as stagnation, and lack of technological innovation and productivity hampered the economy of the Eastern bloc. The time was ripe for a new era of cooperation and dialogue.

True dialogue worked before

It is with this historical perspective, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords that I and fellow OSCE parliamentarians are ardently advocating increased efforts for true dialogue that can contribute to mutual understanding. The reason is simple: it has worked before.

As the current president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have met in recent months with political leaders facing some of the greatest threats.

During my visits this year to Kyiv, Jerusalem and Ramallah, I have learned a great deal about the entrenched difficulties of reaching compromises with adversaries and am not naïve about the obstacles to peace.

But if the families impacted by war, including parents of children killed by Hezbollah rockets and those facing daily barrages of Russian aggression in Ukraine, can be advocates for peace rather than war, then politicians should listen and respond.

I was heartened to note an equal dedication to dialogue as a path to peace when speaking recently with His Holiness Pope Francis. We discussed, in particular, how parliamentary diplomacy can bridge divides, build trust, and promote peaceful solutions.

Dialogue, we agreed, remains one of the most powerful tools at our disposal, even when it seems impossible. This is why it is the duty of parliamentarians to keep channels open.

No ‘one size fits all’ approach

Dialogue and peace efforts are not linear, nor is there a “one size fits all” approach. Within the OSCE PA, we take every opportunity to address the major challenges to peace and security, with the Russian war in Ukraine and the crisis in the Middle East having been at the top of our agenda throughout this year.

I do not expect my parliamentary colleagues and me to mediate final peace processes in these fields, but we can help in many ways. Our dialogue contributes to understanding the complex challenges to peace and human security.

A major component of this is the role that we play in election observation, providing transparency for both citizens and the international community to judge the process through which leaders are chosen.

For example, I recently led two election observation missions in the United States and in Georgia, where we worked with other international partners to issue authoritative statements on the recent elections.

In the US, our observation found that engagement was high across the political spectrum and that the presidential vote was highly competitive, but public trust was undermined by disinformation and political violence.

In Georgia, where I was also the leader in the previous election, I saw harsh polarisation between the parties but also an election that offered voters a wide choice of options where the candidates could campaign freely.

The more than 500 international observers from 42 countries that contributed to this mission have helped the Georgian people gain insight into how their new government got to power and have provided directional guidance on shortcomings in the electoral process to be addressed in the future.

I have already offered the newly elected Georgian authorities the OSCE PA availability to engage constructively to address in the new legislature the recommendation that will emanate from the ODIHR Final report, which will be soon available.

These are practical building blocks for democratic development and security.

All opportunities must be seized

With election observation, the public is fortunate to have independent authorities that can present an array of facts and information that can serve as a basis for conversation and growth.

Internationally, we are not always so fortunate to have a clear statement of the relevant facts.

But that is where dialogue can play a role in establishing a common understanding of the challenges and lines of communication so that the miscalculations and provocations do not have the impact that I feared as a child.

Having grown up to be the leader of an international forum of parliamentarians, I am acutely aware that not all opportunities are going to be successful, which is why all opportunities must be seized.

Pia Kauma is Member of Parliament from Finland and President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.