0 Items
Antonius von Borcke, Principal und Verhandlungsexperte bei Egger Philips, schaut souverän und zugewandt
in die Kamera. Er trägt ein hellblaues Hemd und ein olivfarbenes Sakko.

The summit meeting between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in November 1985 marked a turning point in the Cold War. In a period of global tension, dialogue became possible again in Geneva. The summit stands for negotiation as an attitude: for the willingness to listen where distance had previously prevailed. Dialogue gave rise to new opportunities for cooperation and the first signs of trust.

The Geneva Summit

November 19, 1985

Balken

In November 1985, US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev met in Geneva. It was the first summit meeting between the two superpowers in more than six years and a cautious new beginning in times of Cold War armament.

The world was in a phase of renewed confrontation. After escalating conflicts, trust between East and West had almost disappeared. The arms race had reached a new intensity, and the danger of a nuclear conflict seemed real. At the same time, the Soviet Union was facing considerable economic and social problems. Gorbachev’s accession to power in the spring of 1985 raised hopes for political openness. His programs of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) suggested that change was possible, first internally and then also in relations with the West.

Against this backdrop, Reagan and Gorbachev met for personal talks in Geneva. For two days, they discussed arms control, disarmament, human rights, and regional conflicts. No concrete agreements were reached, but the meeting changed the dynamic. After years of interruption, communication replaced confrontation. Both sides began to exchange not only positions but also perceptions. The Geneva summit thus marked less a diplomatic breakthrough than a change in attitude: the resumption of dialogue as an independent action. In an atmosphere of mistrust, conversation itself became a form of movement. Negotiation here was not seen as an exchange of interests, but as an attempt to gradually rebuild trust.

Two years later, this process led to the INF Treaty, which abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons for the first time. The decisive impetus for this came from Geneva: from the courage to end the silence.

Balken

The Geneva Summit in light of the Harvard Circle

Negotiation Begins Away from the Table

The fall of the Berlin Wall makes clear that decisive negotiations didn’t start in formal meetings, but in churches, on the streets, and in newsrooms. Peace prayers, protest marches, and civic forums laid the groundwork for political change by fostering trust, shared understanding, and early compromise. Negotiation often begins well before the first meeting – wherever legitimacy, visibility, and agency start to form. Those seeking to shape change must attend to these early spaces of resonance. Especially in complex contexts, what matters is not only what is being negotiated, but also where, with whom, and how openly.

Authority Can Obstruct or Enable Action

On November 9, 1989, the East German leadership lacked a coordinated message. Günter Schabowski appeared before the press without a clear briefing and improvised the decisive phrase: “immediately, without delay.” In the absence of clear orders, border guards made their own decisions and opened the crossings. What seemed like a mistake became a historic turning point. In high-pressure negotiations, a lack of top-down control can open space for agency – if individuals are willing to act responsibly. Not every successful negotiation requires perfect coordination, but it does require room for initiative. In rigid systems, controlled loss of control may prove more productive than total oversight.

Behind the demands lay common interests

Even though the official positions seemed irreconcilable, both sides were united by their desire to avoid a nuclear conflict. The talks in Geneva made it clear that both sides feared escalation and were interested in stability. Once interests were openly stated rather than concealed, negotiations could begin.

Dialogue as a workshop for new options

No agreements were signed in Geneva. But new options emerged: regular talks, bilateral working groups, informal channels. In a phase of rigid bloc logic, this opened up a creative space in which political possibilities could be reconfigured beyond zero-sum thinking.

Balken
Sources & Further information