An Overview of the Accords

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ACCORDS:

Helsinki Accords,also calledHelsinki Final Act, (August 1, 1975), major diplomatic agreement signed inHelsinki,Finland, at the conclusion of the first Conference on Security and Co-operation inEurope(CSCE; now called theOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe). The Helsinki Accords were primarily an effort to reducetensionbetween the Soviet and Western blocs by securing their common acceptance of the post-World War II status quo inEurope. The accords were signed by all the countries of Europe (exceptAlbania, which became a signatory in September 1991) and by theUnited StatesandCanada. The agreement recognized the inviolability of the post-World War II frontiers in Europe and pledged the 35 signatory nations to respecthuman rightsand fundamental freedoms and to cooperate in economic, scientific, humanitarian, and other areas. The Helsinki Accords are nonbinding and do not have treaty status.

Sought by theSoviet Unionfrom the 1950s, a European security conference was proposed by theWarsaw Pactin 1966 and was accepted in principle by theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization. In 1972 preparatory talks on the ambassadorial level opened inHelsinki. Over the next several months, an agenda was prepared consisting of four general topics, or “baskets”:

(1) Questions of European security,

(2)Co-operation in economics, science and technology, and the environment,

(3) Humanitarian and cultural cooperation, and

(4) Follow-up to the conference.

Following a foreign ministers’ meeting in Helsinki in July 1973, committees met in Geneva to draft an agreement, a process that lasted from September 1973 to July 1975. The principal interest of the Soviet Union was in gaining implicitrecognitionof its postwar hegemony in Eastern Europe through guarantees of the inviolability of frontiers and noninterference in the internal affairs of states. In return for their formal recognition of this, theUnited Statesand its western European allies pressed the Soviet Union for commitments on such issues as respect for human rights, expansion of contacts between eastern and Western Europe, freedom to travel, and the free flow of information across borders. The Final Act, signed at a summit meeting in Helsinki, reflected both viewpoints. The agreement in effect marked the formal end ofWorld War II, since it recognized all the European national frontiers (includingGermany’s division into two countries) that had arisen out of that war’s aftermath.

The guarantees ofhuman rightscontained in several of the Basket III provisions proved to be a continuing source of East-West contention after the accords were signed in 1975. Soviet crackdowns on internal dissent in the late 1970s and early ’80s prompted Western nations to accuse the Soviets of having entered into the human-rights portions of the accords in bad faith, while the Soviets insisted that these were purely internal matters.

Follow-up conferences to the Helsinki Accords were held atBelgrade,Yugoslavia(now inSerbia), in 1977–78;Madrid,Spain, in 1980–83; andOttawa,Ontario,Canada, in 1985. The collapse ofcommunism inEastern Europe in 1989–90 and the pending reunification ofGermanynecessitated a second summit meeting of the CSCE in order to formally end theCold War: this summit took place in Paris in November 1990.

HELSINKI ACCORDS (Beginning to end):

The Helsinki Final Act:

On 1 August 1975, the 35 Heads of State and Government of the 35 member states signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE, since 1995 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE).

The signing of the Helsinki Final Act is considered to be a historic breakthrough at the height of the Cold War: For the first time, the leading nations of the West (including the US) and the Eastern Bloc (including the Soviet Union) signed a comprehensive accord, expressing their willingness for cooperation in various topics and spheres of activity.

Ten principles

In the Final Act’s catalogue of principles (the so-called «Helsinki Decalogue») the member states defined ten basic rules that should guide their future relations. Principle VII states, among other points, the following on the importance of human rights:

«The participating States recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for the peace, justice and wellbeing necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among themselves as among all States…...

By acknowledging the universal significance of human rights they were declared to be a legitimate subject of international relations and thus no longer classified as internal affairs of states. But there was a conflict of norms on the horizon since Principle VI also postulated the non-intervention in internal affairs. As a result, the Soviet Union and its allies repudiated Western criticism after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act.

Three «baskets»

In the Helsinki Final Act, the work of the CSCE was split up into three «baskets», which have remained intact as the three «dimensions» forming the basic structure of the OSCE:

• 1st basket: Confidence-building measures and certain aspects of security and disarmament
• 2nd basket: Cooperation in the field of economics, science and technology and the environment
• 3rd basket: Cooperation in humanitarian and other fields

The topics of the third basket

Besides the ten principles, the so-called third basket of the Helsinki Final Act also addresses certain human rights and humanitarian issues. The norms contained in the third basket are worded rather vaguely and mainly consist of declarations of the intention to do or at least favourably review something. This basket deals with the following four international and inter-societal sectors:

• Human interaction
• Freedom of information / Freedom of the press
• Cooperation and exchange in cultural issues
• Cooperation and exchange in educational issues

The topics of the third basket, above all human interaction and freedom of information, ranked among the most controversial of the whole CSCE process. Both during the drafting phase of the provisions as well as during the Review Conferences the third basket represented the main issues in the ideological conflict between East and West. It was on these issues that the different societal concepts of the two political camps displayed the greatest divergence, thereby increasing tensions between the blocs, putting the CSCE process’ robustness to the test more than once.

On the importance of the Helsinki Final Act

Although the Helsinki Final Act did not represent a treaty under international law, it was a political agreement that formed the basis for mutual controls and requests on the observance of the obligations contained in it. The Helsinki Final Act defined the concept of international security very broadly. This allowed for the creation of various civil societies Helsinki committees in several countries. It also strengthened the basis of the Western countries when calling for respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the dialogue with the Eastern Bloc countries during the CSCE Review Conferences. In addition, civil rights groups in the Eastern Bloc countries referred to the Final Act in order to strengthen their positions.

Helsinki Accords

TheHelsinki Final Act,Helsinki Accords,orHelsinki Declaration,was the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe held inHelsinki,Finland, between July 30 and August 1, 1975. Thirty-five European countries participated in addition to theUnited StatesandCanada. The aim was to reduce tension between East and West. The document was seen both as a significant step toward reducingCold Wartensions and as a major diplomatic boost for theSoviet Unionat the time, due to its clauses on the inviolability of national borders and respect for territorial integrity, which were seen to consolidate the USSR's territorial gains inEastern Europefollowing theSecond World War.

On the other hand, by signing the document, the Soviet Union had also committed itself to transparency, to upholding civil and human rights and to non-violent resolution of disputes. Analysts identify a cause and effect relationship between the Accords and the eventual collapse of the Soviet bloc. While most if not all of the commitments were contained in the Charter of theUnited Nationsand in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, several rights, such as those of travel and of free speech, were given fresh prominence as a result of the Accords. Critics of the conference and of the Accords argued that détente should focus on arms control, than human rights and related matters detracted from the main agenda. However, the success of the Accords represent a triumph for non-aggressive diplomacy. As a result of the Accords, security slowly became understood by the post-Cold War era as indivisible and comprehensive—that one country cannot provide for its security at the expense of others. Some scholars suggest a Helsinki model for peace in Northeast Asia including theKorean peninsula.

Background:

The Soviet Union had wanted a conference on security in Europe since the 1950s, eager to gain ratification of post-World War II boundaries and of its own role in Eastern Europe.The Conference took three years to plan as delegates drafted the document.It took place under provisions of the United Nations Charter (Chap. VIII). In 1976, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was formalized to assist in monitoring the Accords and to sponsor future conferences, which took place in Belgrade (1977–78), Madrid (1980–83), and Ottawa (1985) and Paris (1990). Much of the negotiation surrounding the Accords was between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Critics thought that détente should focus exclusively on arms control, not deal with civil issues. However, what the Accords set out to achieve was produce less than guidelines on "civilized conduct in Europe."Provisions were discussed under three broad headings, described as "baskets," namely political, economic, and cultural which includededucationand human rights. The Soviet delegation tried to limit "basket three" while bolstering baskets one and two.In contrast, a British diplomat stated, "if we don't lay eggs in the third basket, there will be none in the other ones either."The Soviets wanted recognition of thestatus quoin Europe. When the conference met, it was the "largest assembly of European heads of state or government since the Congress of Vienna in 1815."

Effectively, this amounted to a formal end toWorld War IIbecause the Accords did in fact recognize the division ofGermanyand the "sensitive borders between Poland and East Germany and between Poland and the Soviet Union" as well as other boundaries in the region." Many of these borders had not been officially recognized since the end of the war. All this was in exchange for "a Soviet promise to increase trade, cultural contacts, and the protection of human rights across all Europe."The Soviets also recognized the status ofBerlin"occupied since 1945 by the French, British and U.S. armies" and, radically, agreed to relax travel restrictions between the two German states.Arguably, the object of reducing tension between the two rival blocs was achieved. The Soviet Union walked away with almost everything it had wanted and so did the West. The Accords have been described by both sides as the "high point of détente."

Signatory countries.

United States, Canada, the Soviet Union,Austria,Belgium,Bulgaria,Cyprus,Czechoslovakia,Denmark,Finland,France, theGerman Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany,Greece, theHoly See,Hungary,Iceland,Ireland,Italy,Liechtenstein,Luxembourg,Malta,Monaco, theNetherlands,Norway,Poland,Portugal,Romania,San Marino,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Turkey, theUnited Kingdom,Yugoslavia; excludingAlbaniaandAndorra).

The guiding principles of the Act.

The Act's "Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States" (also known as "The Decalogue")

• Enumerated the following 10 points:

I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty

II. Refraining from the threat or use of force

III. Inviolability of frontiers

IV. Territorial integrity of States

V. Peaceful settlement of disputes

VI. Non-intervention in internal affairs

VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief

VIII. Equal rights and self-determination of peoples

IX. Co-operation among States

X. Fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law

Legacy.

In addition to creating a climate for the development of dissident movements in the Communist world, which called for greaterfreedom,democracyand an end to totalitarian oppression, the Accords attest that diplomacy and negotiation can change the world.

The Accords saw some of the most closed and oppressive regimes make a public commitment to allow their citizens "greater freedom and movement" which served as a "yardstick" by which the world could measure "how well they live up to the stated intentions."

Participants at Helsinki were convinced that normalization of relations with the Soviet Union would not restrict matters of discussion only to those of defense but include cultural exchange and commerce, which could lead to a lessening of tension.

"This is in the best interest of the United States and of the peace of the world.

"Cultural and commercial encounters made possible by the Accords helped each side to see the other as fellow humans, with artistic and other interests in common.

Soviet scholar described the Accords as marking the start of a "new phase of international relations, which finds its expression in the strengthening of international ties and cooperation in the fields of economy, science, andculture.

Over a period of 35 years, such exchange took place "under agreements" such as the Helsinki Accords "concluded with the Soviet government" and "at a cost minuscule in comparison with U.S. expenditure on defense and intelligence."