Impressions from the 13th European Remembrance Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act: ‘The Spirit of Helsinki Then and Now’
Nearly fifty years after diplomats gathered in Finlandia Hall to sign the Helsinki Final Act, the building once again became a stage for reflection and debate. From 10–13 June, over a hundred scholars, activists, diplomats, and politicians met in Helsinki for the 13th European Remembrance Symposium, dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the landmark agreement under the theme “The Spirit of Helsinki Then and Now.”
This year’s symposium was organised in conjunction with the international conference “Helsinki From Below: Grassroots Dynamics and Human Rights”, in partnership with Historians Without Borders in Finland, the University of Helsinki, the Federal Foundation for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Germany, the Leibniz-Institute of European History (IEG), the Religion and Cold War Network (ReCoNet) and the Aue Foundation.
The programme combined five panel discussions, a keynote address, and a concluding round table with cultural and networking events — from a concert and study visits to workshops and case study presentations. The symposium was shadowed by the recent passing of Finnish diplomat Jaakko Laajava, who had been scheduled to join one of the panels, a reminder of the personal legacies bound up with Helsinki’s history.
Among the speakers were museum professionals, academics, and civil society activists alongside diplomats and politicians. Some had been directly involved in the events of 1975 and offered first-hand reflections on the document’s resonance in both East and West.
The following report highlights some of the most compelling discussions and outcomes from these four days — an invitation to rediscover the spirit of Helsinki as both history and living challenge.
Day One – Setting the Stage
Following opening remarks from ENRS Director Rafał Rogulski, Katharina Kunter of the University of Helsinki’s Faculty of Theology, and representatives of the diplomatic corps, the symposium began with a panel discussion on “The Spirit of Helsinki Then and Now.”
Moderated by historian Laura Kolbe, the discussion featured former Czech ambassador Michael Žantovský and former German foreign minister Markus Meckel. Their dialogue set the tone for the entire symposium by exploring both the achievements and contradictions of the Helsinki process.
Markus Meckel argued that Helsinki had been possible in the 1970s only because dialogue was paired with deterrence. He warned against imagining diplomacy as a substitute for security guarantees. This, he insisted, is the lesson most relevant to Europe today, particularly in the face of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Meckel also underlined that Helsinki was not only a triumph of statesmen but of citizens. Dissidents and civil society movements across Eastern Europe used the Final Act’s human rights provisions to challenge their regimes. That same space for civic activism, he argued, remains the key to defending democracy today.
Michael Žantovský echoed the emphasis on civic agency by stating: “Totalitarian systems die of hyperoxia — a surplus of oxygen.” The openness encouraged by Helsinki destabilised closed regimes, but, he noted, dialogue alone is insufficient. Principles must be combined with practical action, whether in Cold War Europe or in today’s world.
Both panellists stressed that the “Spirit of Helsinki” was never a passive ideal but a dynamic combination of strength, civic courage, and principled diplomacy. The challenge for 2025 and beyond is to translate that same synthesis into an age marked by authoritarian resurgence and war on the continent.
Day Two – The Strength of Diplomacy and the Role of Religious Communities
The second day opened with a keynote by historian Michael Cotey Morgan, offering a sweeping interpretation of the Final Act. Rethinking the Helsinki Legacy, Morgan argued that the 1975 agreement was “not designed to stabilise the Cold War but to call it obsolete”. For the West, Helsinki was a tool of “interpenetration”: trade, cultural exchange, and human rights commitments that would gradually undermine communist control. For Moscow, it was an opportunity to present itself as a “champion of peace” while seeking access to Western trade and technology. The lesson for today, Morgan suggested, lies not only in defending the text of the Final Act but in embracing its underlying spirit of creativity and transformation. The diplomats of the early 1970s did not merely preserve the status quo; they imagined a new order. To honour Helsinki today requires the same courage — designing new principles and institutions to meet contemporary crises, and focusing on the future rather than clinging solely to the past.
The subsequent panel discussion on Power and Limitations of Diplomacy examined the strengths and ambiguities of the Final Act. Speakers noted that in 1975 the Soviet Union welcomed it as recognition of post-war borders and its sphere of influence, while the West seized upon its provisions on human rights, freedom of movement, and access to information. Its greatest power — and paradox — lay in balancing sovereignty against universal human rights. This tension allowed Western governments to support dissidents in Eastern Europe without openly violating the agreement.
Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark compared diplomacy and law to a kaleidoscope, shifting between continuity and change. She warned that today’s fragile international order threatens the very foundations on which Helsinki was built. Kristina Spohr emphasised that the Final Act was an agreement rather than a treaty, reflecting diverse and sometimes conflicting motivations of all involved countries. Martin Palouš, speaking from the dissidents’ perspective, showed how sustained diplomatic structures like the CSCE created leverage for movements such as Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia. Henryka Moszczyńska-Dendys added a contemporary diplomatic perspective, highlighting the irony that while Moscow once used the HFA to defend its sphere of influence, today it violates those same principles. She warned of seismic geopolitical changes undermining the post-1945 rules-based order and urged lessons from the Cold War to defend core principles. Michael Cotey Morgan, reflected that diplomacy remains limited until Russia — whether under Putin or a successor — once more seeks international legitimacy. Yet, he noted, political realities can shift quickly: in 1968, after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Helsinki talks seemed impossible; by 1972, negotiations were underway. He urged liberal democracies to prepare long-term visions, ready to seize opportunities when conditions change.
The panel on Religion and the Helsinki Process opened the floor for discussion of the influence the Final Act had on civic society and dissidents’ community in Eastern Europe. It explored how religious actors, institutions, and faith-based values intersected with the Helsinki Final Act, shaping human rights advocacy, diplomacy, and East–West engagement during and after the Cold War. Chaired by Riho Altnurme and Leon van den Broeke, the session combined historical case studies, contemporary reflections, and audience debate.
The most decisive word in forming a comparison between then and now was that of Katharina McLarren, who examined the Holy See’s evolving diplomatic posture, contrasting its strong historical support for multilateralism with its more cautious, even evasive, stance since the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. While earlier popes framed the United Nations and the Helsinki process as pillars of peace and justice, recent Vatican diplomacy has avoided explicitly naming Russia as the aggressor, reframed the war as part of a general global crisis, and reverted to Cold War–style great-power rhetoric. McLarren questioned whether this reflects a failure to apply the moral clarity that Helsinki’s principles demand.
Day Three – Security, Human Rights, Dialogue, and Reconciliation
The third day began with a searching discussion on Security and Human Rights Then and Now, which examined how the very meaning of security has shifted since the Cold War. Agnieszka Kosowicz warned that the greatest dangers today often arise not from external enemies but from within societies themselves — from polarisation, disinformation, and the cultivation of fear. Real security, she argued, must begin with individual dignity and emotional resilience.
From Romania, Maria Axinte traced the country’s trajectory from the era of communist repression, when “state security” was designed to protect the regime rather than the people, to a present in which civic activism has become more possible. She emphasised the role of younger generations in reclaiming a rights-based vision of security, insisting that they are less burdened by fear and more willing to confront the past.
Drawing on decades of work within the CSCE and OSCE, Douglas Wake reflected on the unique achievements of the Final Act. Its insistence on the equal weight of commitments, the requirement for regular follow-up meetings, and the recognition of individuals’ rights gave dissidents powerful tools to demand accountability. Yet he also noted that the OSCE’s consensus model has been a double-edged sword — at once a safeguard of inclusivity and a source of chronic paralysis.
The historical and political dimensions were broadened by András Mink and Hermann Wentker, who pointed to the resurgence of nationalism in Central and Eastern Europe after 1990. The Helsinki principles had helped enable democratic transitions, but fractured human rights discourse also fuelled division and conflict, most tragically in the wars of the former Yugoslavia. Mink added that this pattern remains visible today, with regimes such as Putin’s Russia binding together repression at home with aggression abroad.
Audience interventions on Gaza reminded participants of states’ silence in the face of atrocities, underlining civil society’s responsibility to act. The panel concluded that the “Helsinki spirit” endures, but adapting it to today’s world of polarisation, disinformation, and weakened multilateralism requires fresh institutions, civic engagement, and courage.
The next session, Case Studies: Courage, Bravery, and Leadership in Dialogue, moderated by Barbara Walshe, showcased a range of practical initiatives from across Europe. Joanna Matera of the New Community Foundation in Poland described how carefully structured dialogues can balance perspectives while keeping extremist voices out. From Northern Ireland, Maciej Bator illustrated how connecting shared wartime histories — such as the role of Polish airmen in the Second World War — with contemporary migration helps minorities feel part of national narratives.
Joan Morrison and Mairead McCann from Ireland presented a European Council simulation that places students in policymaking roles, challenging them to move beyond their comfort zones. Ieva Česnulaitytė of DemocracyNext in Lithuania introduced citizens’ assemblies as a way to broaden democratic practice beyond elections, while Ville Kivimäki of the Finnish Literature Society highlighted museums’ potential as civic spaces for dialogue and engagement.
Though diverse in form, all these projects shared a commitment to creating safe environments for dialogue and listening, often drawing inspiration from personal experiences of inequality, conflict, or inherited trauma. Looking ahead, the panellists envisioned sustainable funding, stronger emphasis on communication skills in education, the integration of minority histories into national narratives, and more robust cross-border collaboration.
The day closed with a discussion on Truth and Reconciliation, moderated by Ion Ionita, who described reconciliation as the “hard way” compared with the easier path of hatred and distortion. Taina Máret Pieski, speaking for the Sámi people, highlighted ongoing work to preserve culture, reclaim artefacts, and engage with truth commissions. She insisted that the repatriation of cultural heritage is not a symbolic gesture but a fundamental right, essential to any genuine reconciliation process. Marek Mutor reflected on the Polish–German experience, pointing to the landmark 1965 bishops’ letter — “We forgive you and ask for forgiveness”— as a turning point that, though deeply controversial at the time, opened the path to dialogue. Áron Máthé stressed the importance of history and memory, citing Helsinki’s provisions on minority rights. Suppressed histories, he argued, must be restored in full honesty; otherwise, selective narratives will continue to distort the foundations of community life.
From a structural perspective, Katalin Miklóssy emphasised that reconciliation is rarely permanent. Traumas, she explained, are socially constructed and can be reactivated for political purposes. Even when reconciliation is achieved, it is often temporary, depending on continuous renewal and active participation from below.
The conversation widened to include post-communist societies, where incomplete transitional justice created space for nostalgia for authoritarianism. Combined with economic disillusionment, this legacy has fuelled contemporary polarisation. Yet the panel closed on a cautiously hopeful note: reconciliation, though fragile and contested, remains possible when moral courage, political will, and inclusive dialogue come together.
Day Four – Concluding Round Table and Final Reflections
The final day closed with a round table, Where Has the Spirit of Helsinki Gone and What Is Left after 50 Years?, moderated by Elisa Tarnaala, which brought together political leaders, scholars, and civil society representatives to reflect on Helsinki’s meaning in the present.
Much of the discussion circled around the weaponisation of history. Rasa Juknevičienė, MEP and former Lithuanian defence minister, warned that Russia was deliberately twisting historical narratives to legitimise its aggression: “History is being used as a tool to justify aggression against Ukraine — and against all of us.” She contrasted the fractured West of today with the unity of 1975, posing a challenge to Europe’s leaders: will their choices measure up to the spirit of Helsinki?
That same historical perspective ran through Ladislav Kudrna’s contribution. He recalled how the 1976 trial of the underground band Plastic People of the Universe became a catalyst for Charter 77, showing that even under repression, the Final Act’s language of rights could mobilise unity and resilience. From Ukraine, Taras Kuzio offered a far harsher assessment of the West’s record, calling its policy towards his country “a disaster.” By promising NATO membership without delivering, he argued, the West emboldened Moscow. His warning was uncompromising: “If Ukraine is defeated and Russia is victorious, forget about Helsinki values. Forget about the international order since 1991.”
Other speakers shifted the focus to the role of society. Bradley Reynolds of Historians Without Borders reminded participants that just as dissidents once used Helsinki to hold regimes to account, today’s activists in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Russia need solidarity. But such networks, he cautioned, are “easier to destroy than to build.” Similarly, Ernest Wyciszkiewicz of the Juliusz Mieroszewski Centre for Dialogue spoke of two competing “spirits” of Helsinki: Moscow’s attempt to legitimise empire, and the dissidents’ embrace of human rights. Putin, he argued, has revived the former. “Ukraine has a right to exist only under Russian boot” is Moscow’s message, he said — one that must be resisted.
When the debate turned to the dangers of appeasement, Rasa Juknevičienė insisted: “The only lesson from Helsinki today is that we must defeat evil. No deals with evil.” Kudrna invoked Czechoslovakia’s 1938 tragedy — “Appeasement is the road to hell — and we see what happened in Ukraine.” Kuzio underlined the point by noting that Russia’s 2022 demands included erasing entire sections of Ukrainian law on culture, language, and memory: “We in the West are living in the 21st century. Russia is living in the 19th.”
Wyciszkiewicz stressed that authoritarian regimes manipulate not only the past but also the present and future, urging civil society to engage citizens even on platforms such as TikTok. Reynolds cautioned against lumping all Russians together, emphasising that history should be used not only for critique but also for imagining alternative futures.
What emerged from the discussion was a shared conclusion: history and memory are no longer the preserve of scholars but battlegrounds of legitimacy in today’s wars. To defend the spirit of Helsinki requires reclaiming these narratives — not just to counter aggression but to sustain democratic resilience
As the symposium drew to a close, what stood out was not only the richness of historical perspective but also the urgency of the present. The “spirit of Helsinki” emerged less as a memory of 1975 than as a living challenge: to defend human dignity, to resist the manipulation of history, and to sustain dialogue even in moments of deep division. The conversations in Helsinki underscored that memory and security, rights and reconciliation, diplomacy and civic courage are inseparable.
Fifty years after Helsinki, its true legacy lies not in commemoration but in the courage to renew its spirit for a fractured world.