Creativity. Ideation. Vision. Do not to stick to the status quo. Find inspiration from different processes. Seek out alternative routes. Take a chance on new thinking. These were constantly recurring themes at the International Conference on the 50th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. One speaker, referring to current geopolitical trends, summed up a clear consensus:
“Yes, invest in defence. But also invest in ideas.” 1
The conference, hosted by the European Network for Remembrance and Solidarity between June 10-13th 2025, in Helsinki, marked the 50th anniversary of the agreement signed by 35 political leaders from Europe, the USSR, North America and Canada, which developed a framework for détente in Europe that became a key milestone in ending the Cold War. Almost all sessions of the conference referred to today’s geopolitical turmoil, with participants urging leaders to reignite the ‘Spirit of Helsinki’ and use the Final Act as inspiration.
The Keynote Speaker, Michael Cotey Morgan 2, underlined that creating a Helsinki-like process today may seem unlikely, if not impossible. But it also looked impossible just a few years before the Final Act was signed in 1975. His point was that no matter how bleak the environment, or how constrained the space for diplomacy, events can change quickly. That’s why it is crucial to create what he called “visions of the future” – and to do so in advance of opportunities arising. His point prompted a simple question from the audience:
“How?”
Are there tangible ways to create visions? Are there tools? How did the Helsinki Final Act participants shape visions of the future? Cotey Morgan explained how the “process of imagining” was “messy, boring and lengthy.” It involved meeting after meeting after meeting, stacks of paper and a never-ending stream of documents and proposals. At its heart was “a collision of a plurality of ideas” and importantly, a willingness to tolerate a clash of ideas.
The arguments in fact generated and refined ideas. Cotey Morgan underlined that the imagining process – at least among Western actors – was successful exactly because it was painful, and boring. Conversely, the creative of process of Warsaw Pact countries was a more cautionary tale because there was unchallenged direction from the top rather than any collaborative, or argumentative, back-and-forth. Other speakers agreed with Cotey Morgan’s advice, reiterating the need for plurality of voices and pointing out that creating visions need not wait for specific moments as we are “always in some sort of new beginning” 3 and “action-oriented people will never have all of the information available.” 4 It was advice which sparked memories of another of Europe’s late 20th Century success stories – the peace process in Northern Ireland.
If a case study is ever needed to answer the ‘How?’ of vision creation, Northern Ireland is ideal. In 1975, as the Helsinki Final Act was signed, Northern Ireland was gripped by violent sectarian conflict. Combatants continued killing while politicians could not even sit in the same room. But, as we know now, just over two decades later Northern Ireland transitioned from a sad stalemate to a comprehensive peace deal – the 1998 Good Friday Agreement – and an ongoing process of peacebuilding. It was creativity, ideation and vision that set Northern Ireland on its way. In hindsight, there was a tangible visioning ‘process’ from which insights can still be offered.
Northern Ireland demonstrates that visioning is a process of honest internal discussions within various parties, to identify end-states that are plausible, probable and preferred. The aim is to articulate a desired future, including steps and goals to achieve it. It sounds so simple that it cannot possibly influence such a strategic change as ending a conflict. But the internal discussion in Northern Ireland started to shift mindsets. It made key actors consider their situation and why they were in it. It led to new questions being asked about old problems, including the nature and validity of the struggle. Parties started to imagine the kind of peace they wanted to create and what the public would accept. It started a process of transformation within their own community long before they engaged 'the other'.
By doing this, leaders ascertained what issues their own people would accept movement on once negotiations began. This helped the public feel engaged and reduced feelings of neglect. It prepared everyone for inevitable compromises. In hindsight, visioning was early preparation for negotiations, even if those doing it may not have recognised this at the time.
As these conversations evolved and developed, they were written down in so-called ‘visionary documents’. Some were succinct descriptions of a particular party’s views and needs. Others were comprehensive and included steps for creating peace 5. Some documents were secret but many were published. This enabled other actors to read them, and rival views were digested with vigour. Some wrote responses, published counter-papers or held their own debates. That sparked conferences, seminars and studies on similar topics. A new atmosphere of discussion emerged. Some of the follow-on initiatives were spontaneous, like internal discussions and roundtables. Others were more structured. But all added to the debate.
These visioning documents and other initiatives were instrumental tools in sparking a national conversation, advancing discussion from ‘we want peace’ to ‘this is why and how we want it’. Over the next few years, the responses, seminars, conferences and commentary provided a wealth of views to compare. That coincided with the start of secret and then public negotiations between the main parties. By then the information gleaned via the visioning process enabled identification of common ground. It became clear what issues needed to be on the negotiation table versus those able to be dealt with in working groups or elsewhere. This made the prospect of negotiations less daunting for all.
By the time negotiators took their seats, the visioning process had given everyone an idea of what peace would actually look like. It was less abstract. Politicians, paramilitaries and the public moved thinking beyond a sole focus on the risks and red-lines, which were becoming a tool for spoilers and an excuse for non-negotiation. Mindsets shifted from thinking of peace in terms of loss to what they could gain.
Northern Ireland, and its visioning process, exemplifies the advice that multiple speakers gave at the International Conference on the 50th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. It reflects Michael Cotey Morgan’s observation that success can be painful, and boring, because it requires meeting upon meeting upon meeting. Piles of proposals. Forests-worth of documents. What Northern Ireland and the Helsinki Final Act both underline is how important it is to invest in ideas. But in both cases, to use Cotey Morgan’s phrase, it was the “willingness to outlast” that led to a degree of success that had been unimaginable just a few years prior.
The conference was a timely reminder that invoking the Spirit of Helsinki requires commitment to creativity, ideation and vision. But success also hinges on equally important element:
Perseverance.
1 Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, Åbo Akademi, Turku.
2 Michael Cotey Morgan, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
3 Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, Åbo Akademi, Turku.
4 Ibid.
5 Examples online include: ‘Common Sense: Northern Ireland - An Agreed Process' (UPRG 1987), 'A Scenario for Peace' (Sinn Fein 1987).