The Middle East needs its own Helsinki Act

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The writers are the president of Finland and the president of Germany

In the late 1960s, Europe was divided — a rift most painfully visible in the concrete and barbed wire of the Berlin Wall. The Cuban missile crisis had brought the world to the edge of nuclear catastrophe. The Soviet Union had crushed the Prague Spring. The Vietnam war had laid bare the readiness of great powers to wage devastating proxy conflicts. And yet it was precisely in this climate of mistrust that the most ambitious co-operative security initiative of the 20th century was conceived.

In the 1970s, 35 nations came together: Nato allies, Warsaw Pact members, neutral and nonaligned states. The process culminated in the Helsinki Final Act of August 1975, a landmark of cold war détente. The lesson we draw is simple: you do not need trust to begin a process. The process itself is what builds trust. In that spirit, and fully aware of how long and difficult the road proved to be, we propose a new Helsinki for the Middle East.

The Iran war has pushed the region to the brink. Civilians in the Gulf states, Israel, Lebanon and Iran have borne the biggest brunt. Iranians are being suffocated by intensified repression. The Strait of Hormuz has become a flashpoint of geopolitical competition, disrupting markets and threatening livelihoods. Israeli society is deeply scarred by the trauma of October 7, while Gazans continue to endure a staggering humanitarian catastrophe and Palestinians in the West Bank see their livelihoods and political hopes crushed by aggressive Israeli settlement.

Trust, that most fragile of political resources and strongest diplomatic currency, is in short supply in the Middle East. Currently, all eyes are on the renewed tensions in the Gulf. The US-Iran framework, forged with the support of Pakistan, Qatar and others, is fragile but vital for de-escalation and a lasting end to the blockade. Beyond conflict management in Hormuz, however, there is a growing recognition both inside and outside the region that the Middle East needs a political process that is bigger both in participation and in scope. A new Helsinki moment could set in motion a region-wide dialogue for peace. The starting point is this: despite all conflicts and grievances, with no preconditions — what can this region agree on, here and now?

Foundations of considerable mutual interest exist and must be built upon. The genius of Helsinki was that all relevant actors brought their priorities to the table, negotiated for common ground and tested areas for confidence building, slowly replacing elements of confrontation with co-operation. The process can only be meaningful if all relevant actors are at the table. The Helsinki Final Act included 35 nations.

A Middle East process should be equally inclusive, starting with all countries in the region. Outside actors with interests and influence can play a constructive role, as evidenced by the 2015 nuclear agreement.

We write this with humility and are under no illusions about the obstacles to our proposal. The Middle East is far more complex than cold war Europe. Religious, ethnic and ideological faultlines run deep. Proxy conflicts and territorial disputes have entrenched patterns of enmity that diplomacy has not dissolved. But complexity has never been a compelling argument against dialogue; it has always been the strongest argument for it. Without a process aimed at co-operative security, the region will fracture further, descending into ever more transactional and unstable alliances and counter-alliances.

The idea of a co-operative security architecture in the Middle East is not new but past debates have focused on the obstacles. We prefer to focus on the positive: the momentum for dialogue, the elements that could be adapted from the European experience and the opportunity for our regions to learn from each other. Structured dialogue, issue-based co-operation and confidence-building measures that worked for us can work elsewhere.

The Helsinki Final Act opened with a simple sentence: states were “motivated by the political will, in the interest of peoples to improve and intensify their relations and to contribute […] to peace, security, justice and co-operation.” Not trust. Not the resolution of grievances. Just the political will to seek a structured alternative to conflict. If that political will exists in the region, it can be transformed into a meaningful pathway. We stand ready to support the process.