{"title":"你相信吗?赫尔辛基协议改变了世界?彼得·l·w·奥斯诺斯与霍利·卡特纳合著的《推进全球人权和欧洲安全几十年》","authors":"Vojtech Mastny","doi":"10.1162/jcws_r_01163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Has Russia's invasion of sovereign Ukraine, with its attendant atrocities, relegated the 1975 Helsinki agreement and its advocacy of human rights to the dustbin of history? Two very different books, both by former Moscow correspondents of major Western newspapers, disagree. Peter Osnos, a former correspondent for The Washington Post, wants us “to believe [that] the Helsinki accords changed the world” by advancing both human rights and security. Richard Davy, who was a correspondent for The Times of London, is not so certain.The first book is primarily a memoir highlighting the contributions by the author, his wife, and his father-in-law, U.S. ambassador Albert W. Sherer, to the shaping of the Helsinki process and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in its early stages. It includes little on CSCE that is not already known but sheds light on the trajectory of the Helsinki Watch group, a non-governmental organization (NGO) in which Osnos has been deeply involved and which was instrumental in helping to transform dissent within the Soviet bloc into a political force, thus helping to undermine the Soviet system and facilitating the Cold War's peaceful resolution. The book includes two chapters by Helsinki Watch's former director, Holly Cartner, reminiscing about the NGO's transformation after its “Helsinki connection became less important . . . and the ambitions of the organization became increasingly global” (p. 128), with activists pursuing more self-centered agendas.Rebranded as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and serving as a watchdog of human rights anywhere, the group raised eyebrows when it “aligned itself with the position of far-right politicians” (p. 129) and again when it accepted Saudi money and “crossed . . . the threshold” by naming Israel “an apartheid state” (p. 132). After HRW chose “neutrality” by “not picking sides in [the Russia-Ukraine] war or ascribing blame for starting it” (p. 136), Osnos came to wonder whether “it is possible to denounce violence of all kinds when one side is defending itself and the other is intent on maximum destruction” (p. 135). Yet, he still regards HRW as “far and away the most important global human rights and social justice organization in history,” confident that its “scale . . . and the endowment (rare among NGOs) and a record of sustained achievement, assures that it will remain a pillar of human rights” (pp. 65, 140).Davy's study is refreshingly free of such ruminations. Although the book does not add much to what is already known about the Helsinki process, it provides a reliable overview and adds to a better understanding of it as a unique experiment in multilateral diplomacy. Based on solid command of the voluminous secondary literature and salient primary sources, Davy poses the right questions, without necessarily offering final answers, leaving it up to readers to form their own judgments. In explaining the road to Helsinki, he attributes key importance to the rise of détente, defined as the period in the 1960s and 1970s when the Cold War adversaries concluded that reducing tension was in their interests, even though a descent to a “Second Cold War” in the early 1980s occurred before the standoff reached an unexpected dénouement. Davy credits the Helsinki process with “defrosting” the Cold War, but he does not address the larger question of whether détente accelerated or delayed the happy end of the confrontation.Defrosting the Cold War and Beyond does not attempt to draw a direct line between the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the unraveling of the Soviet bloc. Davy argues that the Helsinki process “contributed to the end of communism in Eastern Europe” but “did not cause the collapse” (pp. 234–235). He contends that the outcome was produced not by the workings of diplomacy, multilateral or otherwise, but by timely action from below by the peoples of the region and from above, crucially, by the lack of action by their rulers amid the incipient implosion of the power structure of the Soviet state.When the Cold War ended, Davy observes, “the states of the CSCE might have declared their work done” and closed shop. Instead, “the Helsinki process entered an entirely new phase [and] continued to evolve” (p. 173). The conference not only reinvented itself as an institution, albeit one without legal personality—the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)—but also enlarged itself beyond recognition by including the Soviet Union's Central Asian successor states of questionable European identity. By 2015, as the largest regional security organization in the world, with nearly 60 member-states supposed to make decisions by consensus, it had been largely paralyzed by Russia's obstruction. Davy nevertheless remains optimistic about the OSCE's potential, citing particularly its record of monitoring elections in countries susceptible to manipulating them.Even before Russia's aggression against Ukraine, however, the CSCE/OSCE had been sidelined by other international bodies—not only by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, but also by the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and the G-20 group of the world's largest economies. In addressing the tired question of whether there “was an opportunity missed to set up a new pan-European security system that would have included Russia, enabling it to feel less isolated and threatened” (p. 189), Davy examines a wide range of the arguments, whether misinformed or disingenuous, before reaching the conclusion that “in the end [Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who] made choices” (p. 202). Putin's fateful choice to launch an all-out war against Russia's Slavic neighbor—shortly after the book went to the printer—made the issue of Russia's membership in Europe's security system problematic for the indefinite future.On the question of whether the Helsinki model can be applied elsewhere in the world, Davy's “short answer is no, [for] Helsinki was specific to its time and place in Cold War Europe” (p. 239). Its legacy thus boils down to what lessons may be learned from it or, given the Cold War's anomalous nature, what wrong lessons should be avoided. He considers a dozen possible lessons, from the CSCE's procedural innovations to the application of its soft power and pursuit of the linkage between security and human rights. “Before selecting from the toolbox,” however, “we must see it whole in a historical context” (p. 247). Thus, for example, trying to apply in the Ukraine war the Helsinki-style “basket” approach that worked in negotiating the 1998 Irish Good Friday agreement—as if the parties in those conflicts were in any way comparable—would be a non-starter.At the time of this writing, with Russia's war against Ukraine still raging and its outcome uncertain, the relevance of the Helsinki process to Europe's security predicament is also uncertain. Military, rather than soft or any other power, reigns supreme as long as a real war is in progress, and diplomacy should stay on hold at a time when compromise is out of the question. Yet, all wars eventually end, and, provided that Russia has been defeated, the security environment that could emerge after the war might conceivably resuscitate the OSCE, perhaps even by applying the Helsinki principles to bring together Europe and its Central Asian “near abroad.” If that proves to be the case, Davy's book could serve as an indispensable primer not only for students but also for policymakers.","PeriodicalId":45551,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cold War Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"<i>Would You Believe . . . the Helsinki Accords Changed the World? Advancing Global Human Rights and, for Decades, Security in Europe</i> by Peter L. W. Osnos with Holly Cartner\",\"authors\":\"Vojtech Mastny\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jcws_r_01163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Has Russia's invasion of sovereign Ukraine, with its attendant atrocities, relegated the 1975 Helsinki agreement and its advocacy of human rights to the dustbin of history? Two very different books, both by former Moscow correspondents of major Western newspapers, disagree. Peter Osnos, a former correspondent for The Washington Post, wants us “to believe [that] the Helsinki accords changed the world” by advancing both human rights and security. Richard Davy, who was a correspondent for The Times of London, is not so certain.The first book is primarily a memoir highlighting the contributions by the author, his wife, and his father-in-law, U.S. ambassador Albert W. Sherer, to the shaping of the Helsinki process and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in its early stages. It includes little on CSCE that is not already known but sheds light on the trajectory of the Helsinki Watch group, a non-governmental organization (NGO) in which Osnos has been deeply involved and which was instrumental in helping to transform dissent within the Soviet bloc into a political force, thus helping to undermine the Soviet system and facilitating the Cold War's peaceful resolution. The book includes two chapters by Helsinki Watch's former director, Holly Cartner, reminiscing about the NGO's transformation after its “Helsinki connection became less important . . . and the ambitions of the organization became increasingly global” (p. 128), with activists pursuing more self-centered agendas.Rebranded as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and serving as a watchdog of human rights anywhere, the group raised eyebrows when it “aligned itself with the position of far-right politicians” (p. 129) and again when it accepted Saudi money and “crossed . . . the threshold” by naming Israel “an apartheid state” (p. 132). After HRW chose “neutrality” by “not picking sides in [the Russia-Ukraine] war or ascribing blame for starting it” (p. 136), Osnos came to wonder whether “it is possible to denounce violence of all kinds when one side is defending itself and the other is intent on maximum destruction” (p. 135). Yet, he still regards HRW as “far and away the most important global human rights and social justice organization in history,” confident that its “scale . . . and the endowment (rare among NGOs) and a record of sustained achievement, assures that it will remain a pillar of human rights” (pp. 65, 140).Davy's study is refreshingly free of such ruminations. Although the book does not add much to what is already known about the Helsinki process, it provides a reliable overview and adds to a better understanding of it as a unique experiment in multilateral diplomacy. Based on solid command of the voluminous secondary literature and salient primary sources, Davy poses the right questions, without necessarily offering final answers, leaving it up to readers to form their own judgments. In explaining the road to Helsinki, he attributes key importance to the rise of détente, defined as the period in the 1960s and 1970s when the Cold War adversaries concluded that reducing tension was in their interests, even though a descent to a “Second Cold War” in the early 1980s occurred before the standoff reached an unexpected dénouement. Davy credits the Helsinki process with “defrosting” the Cold War, but he does not address the larger question of whether détente accelerated or delayed the happy end of the confrontation.Defrosting the Cold War and Beyond does not attempt to draw a direct line between the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the unraveling of the Soviet bloc. Davy argues that the Helsinki process “contributed to the end of communism in Eastern Europe” but “did not cause the collapse” (pp. 234–235). He contends that the outcome was produced not by the workings of diplomacy, multilateral or otherwise, but by timely action from below by the peoples of the region and from above, crucially, by the lack of action by their rulers amid the incipient implosion of the power structure of the Soviet state.When the Cold War ended, Davy observes, “the states of the CSCE might have declared their work done” and closed shop. Instead, “the Helsinki process entered an entirely new phase [and] continued to evolve” (p. 173). The conference not only reinvented itself as an institution, albeit one without legal personality—the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)—but also enlarged itself beyond recognition by including the Soviet Union's Central Asian successor states of questionable European identity. By 2015, as the largest regional security organization in the world, with nearly 60 member-states supposed to make decisions by consensus, it had been largely paralyzed by Russia's obstruction. Davy nevertheless remains optimistic about the OSCE's potential, citing particularly its record of monitoring elections in countries susceptible to manipulating them.Even before Russia's aggression against Ukraine, however, the CSCE/OSCE had been sidelined by other international bodies—not only by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, but also by the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and the G-20 group of the world's largest economies. In addressing the tired question of whether there “was an opportunity missed to set up a new pan-European security system that would have included Russia, enabling it to feel less isolated and threatened” (p. 189), Davy examines a wide range of the arguments, whether misinformed or disingenuous, before reaching the conclusion that “in the end [Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who] made choices” (p. 202). Putin's fateful choice to launch an all-out war against Russia's Slavic neighbor—shortly after the book went to the printer—made the issue of Russia's membership in Europe's security system problematic for the indefinite future.On the question of whether the Helsinki model can be applied elsewhere in the world, Davy's “short answer is no, [for] Helsinki was specific to its time and place in Cold War Europe” (p. 239). Its legacy thus boils down to what lessons may be learned from it or, given the Cold War's anomalous nature, what wrong lessons should be avoided. He considers a dozen possible lessons, from the CSCE's procedural innovations to the application of its soft power and pursuit of the linkage between security and human rights. “Before selecting from the toolbox,” however, “we must see it whole in a historical context” (p. 247). Thus, for example, trying to apply in the Ukraine war the Helsinki-style “basket” approach that worked in negotiating the 1998 Irish Good Friday agreement—as if the parties in those conflicts were in any way comparable—would be a non-starter.At the time of this writing, with Russia's war against Ukraine still raging and its outcome uncertain, the relevance of the Helsinki process to Europe's security predicament is also uncertain. Military, rather than soft or any other power, reigns supreme as long as a real war is in progress, and diplomacy should stay on hold at a time when compromise is out of the question. Yet, all wars eventually end, and, provided that Russia has been defeated, the security environment that could emerge after the war might conceivably resuscitate the OSCE, perhaps even by applying the Helsinki principles to bring together Europe and its Central Asian “near abroad.” If that proves to be the case, Davy's book could serve as an indispensable primer not only for students but also for policymakers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cold War Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cold War Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01163\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cold War Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01163","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
俄罗斯对主权国家乌克兰的入侵,以及随之而来的暴行,是否将1975年的赫尔辛基协议及其对人权的倡导,扔进了历史的垃圾箱?两本截然不同的书,都是前西方主要报纸驻莫斯科记者写的,对此持不同意见。《华盛顿邮报》(The Washington Post)前记者彼得•奥斯诺斯(Peter Osnos)希望我们“相信赫尔辛基协议改变了世界”,因为它促进了人权和安全。理查德·戴维(Richard Davy)是伦敦《泰晤士报》(The Times)的记者,他对此并不确定。第一本书主要是一本回忆录,突出了作者、他的妻子和他的岳父、美国大使阿尔伯特·w·谢勒在赫尔辛基进程和欧洲安全与合作会议(欧安会)的早期阶段对其形成的贡献。它所包括的关于欧安会的情况很少为人所知,但它阐明了赫尔辛基观察小组的发展轨迹。赫尔辛基观察小组是一个非政府组织,阿斯诺斯一直深入参与其中,它在帮助将苏联集团内部的异议转化为一股政治力量方面发挥了重要作用,从而有助于破坏苏联制度,促进冷战的和平解决。书中有两章是赫尔辛基观察前主任霍利·卡特纳(Holly Cartner)写的,他回忆了这个非政府组织在“与赫尔辛基的联系变得不那么重要了……”之后的转型。该组织的野心变得越来越全球化”(第128页),活动人士追求更多以自我为中心的议程。该组织更名为“人权观察”(HRW),作为世界各地人权的监督者,当它“与极右翼政客的立场一致”(第129页),当它再次接受沙特的资金并“越过……”时,令人惊讶。将以色列称为“种族隔离国家”(第132页)。人权观察选择了“中立”,“在[俄乌]战争中不选边站,也不归咎于战争的肇事者”(第136页),之后,Osnos开始怀疑“当一方在自卫,另一方意图最大限度地破坏时,是否有可能谴责各种暴力行为”(第135页)。然而,他仍然认为人权观察是“历史上最重要的全球人权和社会正义组织”,相信它的“规模……捐款(在非政府组织中是罕见的)和持续成就的记录保证它将继续是人权的支柱”(第65、140页)。戴维的研究没有这样的沉思,令人耳目一新。尽管这本书对赫尔辛基进程的已知内容没有增加太多内容,但它提供了一个可靠的概述,并有助于更好地理解它是多边外交的一次独特实验。基于对大量二手文献和重要第一手资料的扎实掌握,戴维提出了正确的问题,而不必提供最终答案,让读者自己形成自己的判断。在解释通往赫尔辛基的道路时,他将关键的重要性归因于“过渡时期”的兴起。“过渡时期”被定义为20世纪60年代和70年代,当时冷战的对手得出结论,认为缓和紧张局势符合他们的利益,尽管在20世纪80年代初,在僵局达到意想不到的过渡时期之前,就已经陷入了“第二次冷战”。戴维将赫尔辛基进程归功于冷战的“解冻”,但他并没有谈到一个更大的问题,即谈判是否加速或推迟了对抗的圆满结束。《冷战及以后的解冻》一书并没有试图将1975年的赫尔辛基最后文件与苏联集团的解体直接联系起来。戴维认为,赫尔辛基进程“促成了东欧共产主义的终结”,但“没有导致崩溃”(第234-235页)。他认为,这一结果不是由外交、多边或其他方式的作用产生的,而是由该地区人民自下而上和自上而下的及时行动产生的,更重要的是,由于他们的统治者在苏维埃国家权力结构刚开始崩溃时缺乏行动。戴维观察到,当冷战结束时,“欧安会成员国可能会宣布他们的工作已经完成”,然后关门大吉。相反,“赫尔辛基进程进入了一个全新的阶段[并]继续发展”(第173页)。会议不仅将自己重塑为一个机构,尽管没有法人资格——欧洲安全与合作组织(欧安组织)——而且还扩大了自己的范围,包括苏联的中亚继承国,这些国家的欧洲身份受到质疑。到2015年,作为世界上最大的地区安全组织,拥有近60个成员国,本应通过协商一致的方式做出决定,但由于俄罗斯的阻挠,它在很大程度上陷入了瘫痪。尽管如此,戴维仍然对欧安组织的潜力持乐观态度,他特别提到了欧安组织在容易被操纵的国家监督选举的记录。 然而,甚至在俄罗斯侵略乌克兰之前,欧安会/欧安组织就已经被其他国际组织边缘化了——不仅是北大西洋公约组织和欧盟,还有欧洲委员会、联合国和世界最大经济体组成的20国集团。在回答“是否错过了建立一个包括俄罗斯在内的新的泛欧安全体系的机会,使其感到不那么孤立和威胁”(第189页)这个令人厌倦的问题时,戴维检查了各种各样的论点,无论是被误导还是虚伪,然后得出结论“最终[俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京是]做出选择的人”(第202页)。在该书付印后不久,普京决定对俄罗斯的斯拉夫邻国发动一场全面战争,这使得俄罗斯在欧洲安全体系中的成员资格问题在不确定的未来成为问题。关于赫尔辛基模式是否可以应用于世界其他地方的问题,Davy的“简短的回答是否定的,[因为]赫尔辛基是特定于它在冷战欧洲的时间和地点的”(第239页)。因此,它的遗产可以归结为可以从中吸取什么教训,或者考虑到冷战的反常性质,应该避免哪些错误的教训。他考虑了十几个可能的教训,从欧安会的程序革新到运用其软实力以及寻求安全和人权之间的联系。然而,“在从工具箱中进行选择之前”,“我们必须在历史背景下全面看待它”(第247页)。因此,例如,试图在乌克兰战争中采用1998年爱尔兰耶稣受难日协议谈判中奏效的赫尔辛基式“篮子”方法——仿佛冲突各方在任何方面都具有可比性——将是不可能成功的。在撰写本文之时,由于俄罗斯对乌克兰的战争仍在肆虐,其结果也不确定,赫尔辛基进程对欧洲安全困境的相关性也不确定。只要一场真正的战争还在进行,军事力量,而不是软实力或其他任何力量,才是至高无上的。在妥协无望的时候,外交应该暂停。然而,所有的战争最终都会结束,而且,只要俄罗斯被击败,战后可能出现的安全环境可能会使欧安组织复苏,甚至可能通过应用赫尔辛基原则将欧洲及其中亚“近邻”团结起来。如果事实证明是这样的话,戴维的书不仅可以成为学生,也可以成为政策制定者不可或缺的入门读物。
Would You Believe . . . the Helsinki Accords Changed the World? Advancing Global Human Rights and, for Decades, Security in Europe by Peter L. W. Osnos with Holly Cartner
Has Russia's invasion of sovereign Ukraine, with its attendant atrocities, relegated the 1975 Helsinki agreement and its advocacy of human rights to the dustbin of history? Two very different books, both by former Moscow correspondents of major Western newspapers, disagree. Peter Osnos, a former correspondent for The Washington Post, wants us “to believe [that] the Helsinki accords changed the world” by advancing both human rights and security. Richard Davy, who was a correspondent for The Times of London, is not so certain.The first book is primarily a memoir highlighting the contributions by the author, his wife, and his father-in-law, U.S. ambassador Albert W. Sherer, to the shaping of the Helsinki process and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in its early stages. It includes little on CSCE that is not already known but sheds light on the trajectory of the Helsinki Watch group, a non-governmental organization (NGO) in which Osnos has been deeply involved and which was instrumental in helping to transform dissent within the Soviet bloc into a political force, thus helping to undermine the Soviet system and facilitating the Cold War's peaceful resolution. The book includes two chapters by Helsinki Watch's former director, Holly Cartner, reminiscing about the NGO's transformation after its “Helsinki connection became less important . . . and the ambitions of the organization became increasingly global” (p. 128), with activists pursuing more self-centered agendas.Rebranded as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and serving as a watchdog of human rights anywhere, the group raised eyebrows when it “aligned itself with the position of far-right politicians” (p. 129) and again when it accepted Saudi money and “crossed . . . the threshold” by naming Israel “an apartheid state” (p. 132). After HRW chose “neutrality” by “not picking sides in [the Russia-Ukraine] war or ascribing blame for starting it” (p. 136), Osnos came to wonder whether “it is possible to denounce violence of all kinds when one side is defending itself and the other is intent on maximum destruction” (p. 135). Yet, he still regards HRW as “far and away the most important global human rights and social justice organization in history,” confident that its “scale . . . and the endowment (rare among NGOs) and a record of sustained achievement, assures that it will remain a pillar of human rights” (pp. 65, 140).Davy's study is refreshingly free of such ruminations. Although the book does not add much to what is already known about the Helsinki process, it provides a reliable overview and adds to a better understanding of it as a unique experiment in multilateral diplomacy. Based on solid command of the voluminous secondary literature and salient primary sources, Davy poses the right questions, without necessarily offering final answers, leaving it up to readers to form their own judgments. In explaining the road to Helsinki, he attributes key importance to the rise of détente, defined as the period in the 1960s and 1970s when the Cold War adversaries concluded that reducing tension was in their interests, even though a descent to a “Second Cold War” in the early 1980s occurred before the standoff reached an unexpected dénouement. Davy credits the Helsinki process with “defrosting” the Cold War, but he does not address the larger question of whether détente accelerated or delayed the happy end of the confrontation.Defrosting the Cold War and Beyond does not attempt to draw a direct line between the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the unraveling of the Soviet bloc. Davy argues that the Helsinki process “contributed to the end of communism in Eastern Europe” but “did not cause the collapse” (pp. 234–235). He contends that the outcome was produced not by the workings of diplomacy, multilateral or otherwise, but by timely action from below by the peoples of the region and from above, crucially, by the lack of action by their rulers amid the incipient implosion of the power structure of the Soviet state.When the Cold War ended, Davy observes, “the states of the CSCE might have declared their work done” and closed shop. Instead, “the Helsinki process entered an entirely new phase [and] continued to evolve” (p. 173). The conference not only reinvented itself as an institution, albeit one without legal personality—the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)—but also enlarged itself beyond recognition by including the Soviet Union's Central Asian successor states of questionable European identity. By 2015, as the largest regional security organization in the world, with nearly 60 member-states supposed to make decisions by consensus, it had been largely paralyzed by Russia's obstruction. Davy nevertheless remains optimistic about the OSCE's potential, citing particularly its record of monitoring elections in countries susceptible to manipulating them.Even before Russia's aggression against Ukraine, however, the CSCE/OSCE had been sidelined by other international bodies—not only by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union, but also by the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and the G-20 group of the world's largest economies. In addressing the tired question of whether there “was an opportunity missed to set up a new pan-European security system that would have included Russia, enabling it to feel less isolated and threatened” (p. 189), Davy examines a wide range of the arguments, whether misinformed or disingenuous, before reaching the conclusion that “in the end [Russian President Vladimir Putin was the one who] made choices” (p. 202). Putin's fateful choice to launch an all-out war against Russia's Slavic neighbor—shortly after the book went to the printer—made the issue of Russia's membership in Europe's security system problematic for the indefinite future.On the question of whether the Helsinki model can be applied elsewhere in the world, Davy's “short answer is no, [for] Helsinki was specific to its time and place in Cold War Europe” (p. 239). Its legacy thus boils down to what lessons may be learned from it or, given the Cold War's anomalous nature, what wrong lessons should be avoided. He considers a dozen possible lessons, from the CSCE's procedural innovations to the application of its soft power and pursuit of the linkage between security and human rights. “Before selecting from the toolbox,” however, “we must see it whole in a historical context” (p. 247). Thus, for example, trying to apply in the Ukraine war the Helsinki-style “basket” approach that worked in negotiating the 1998 Irish Good Friday agreement—as if the parties in those conflicts were in any way comparable—would be a non-starter.At the time of this writing, with Russia's war against Ukraine still raging and its outcome uncertain, the relevance of the Helsinki process to Europe's security predicament is also uncertain. Military, rather than soft or any other power, reigns supreme as long as a real war is in progress, and diplomacy should stay on hold at a time when compromise is out of the question. Yet, all wars eventually end, and, provided that Russia has been defeated, the security environment that could emerge after the war might conceivably resuscitate the OSCE, perhaps even by applying the Helsinki principles to bring together Europe and its Central Asian “near abroad.” If that proves to be the case, Davy's book could serve as an indispensable primer not only for students but also for policymakers.