Negotiating With Enemy: Unloved Masterpiece

Why was it such a great success?

'There were historical grievances between the parties and deep ideological divisions. Yet after three years of talks they reached a highly significant, multidimensional agreement. It covered security and borders, but also human rights, economics, cultural exchange and student exchanges. It offered a comprehensive and visionary understanding of what security really means - a milestone in the Cold War. Security is not just about stopping the fighting.'

You call the accords an 'unloved masterpiece'. That sounds both fantastic and confusing. Can you explain?

'It is certainly a masterpiece, deeply inspiring. Even though there was distrust, they were still willing to build bridges and find common ground. It is easy to demonise the other side, to say they are not worth talking to. It was "unloved" in various ways and by different actors. For example, it was unloved in the West because the initiative originally came from the Soviet Union, which was why the West rejected it for twenty years. It was seen as a propaganda victory for the East that negotiations even took place at all. When it was finally signed in 1975 - including by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev - it was considered a Soviet success. But anyone who read the text quickly realised that it was actually advantageous to the West.'

How so?

'The agreement included commitments on human rights and freedom of movement. Precisely because it was a Soviet initiative, the text was published in all state newspapers in the Warsaw Pact states. Some in the Kremlin reacted with disgust at what Brezhnev had signed. Citizens read in the newspapers about their rights to leave the country and began demanding it - and at that point the accords became truly "unloved" by communist leaders.'

'Even in major conflicts, diplomacy continues'

How has the world changed fifty years later?

'If you are a teenager today, it must really feel as though the world is falling apart. On social media you see constant news of famine, conflict, terrorism. Diplomacy is no magic cure, but it is very difficult to resolve a conflict without diplomacy. Even in major conflicts, diplomacy continues, sometimes secretly, as with today's prisoner exchanges in Ukraine. That too is diplomacy. Yet some conflicts cannot be solved diplomatically, at least not for a time.'

Why do you want to draw attention to this?

'I grew up in the 1980s in a divided Germany, where people were shot if they tried to cross the border. The Berlin Wall eventually fell peacefully, when I was twelve years old. It left a huge impression on me and I began to wonder: how do you resolve a political conflict? I first learned about the Helsinki Final Act in high school and during my master's in International Relations at Oxford I saw how much research was still needed. Based on archival evidence from eleven countries, my new book digs deep into what actually happened at the negotiating table. How did they manage to achieve this?'

Is the military option a bigger problem today?

'The military option is actually part of the problem. The aggressive state tests the military route, and sometimes suffers huge losses, before diplomatic options are even considered. The military path is also much more costly, and it can take a long time before a leader realizes that. In Russia's case there are very few domestic constraints - there is no real opposition party.'

What lesson can be drawn for future diplomacy?

'Multilateralism - bringing many parties to the table - often leads to better and more sustainable outcomes. In Helsinki everyone was invited. The process was slow and frustrating. But once everyone has contributed, everyone becomes a stakeholder. It then becomes difficult to step out of the train. Even though some considered it, no one ultimately did. Nobody wanted to be seen as the party that stopped the process. It is hard to explain why you are not willing to talk about peace. Achieving peace takes time; there is no quick fix. Many people work behind the scenes to make it possible.'

Would such negotiations still be possible today?

'The short answer is yes, under certain conditions. The OSCE, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, grew out of the Helsinki Final Act. It now has 57 participating states, including the US, Russia, Ukraine and all European countries. The organisation rarely makes front-page news, but it does important diplomatic work behind the scenes. Underfunded and underused, it could be reactivated and support negotiations. I would not claim that the OSCE is the solution, but it could certainly contribute.'