Present first the background for the present security arrangements in the Nordic countries. Discuss then whether the tendency is towards greater similarities or differences between the Nordic countries

Résumé du document

"Since 1720, all the Nordic countries have remained minor powers on the international stage. As such, the Nordic states have had to adapt to the constraints that are usually beyond their control." This statement could summarize the geopolitical situation which has shaped the security policies of the Nordic countries for the last two centuries. However, it is too general, as it considers the Nordic states as one single entity, without drawing attention to the diversity of the region. Indeed, the Nordic countries, which comprise Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland , neither have the same historical background nor the same geo-strategic situation. In fact, they can be classified into two categories: the former empires, Sweden and Denmark, and the former colonies, Finland, Norway and Iceland . Moreover, for centuries, the Nordic region was far from being the peaceful region that it is now: between 1563 and 1720. Denmark and Sweden struggled for regional hegemony and were involved in not less than seven wars. Actually, the 1814 Norwegian-Swedish war, which resulted in a Swedish victory, was the last war that took place between two Nordic countries, even though at the Norwegian independence in 1905, the use of military force was seriously considered (Nyhamar 2004: 228). However, even in the absence of any inter-Nordic war, the Nordic region, as the rest of Europe, was known, throughout the 20th century, wars and military threats, which only disappeared with the end of the Cold War in 1989. Indeed, since the beginning of the 1990s, war and even the potentiality of war seem to have left Western Europe for good, giving the "small" Nordic states an opportunity to shape their security policies not only according to constraints but also according to choice. Consequently, it seems legitimate to wonder whether the tendency of the security arrangements of the Nordic states has been existant since 1991 towards greater similarities or differences.

First, we will present the background information for the present security arrangements in the Nordic countries, by outlining the security policies they adopted until the end of the Cold War. Then we will assess the differences and similarities of their post-Cold War choices.

Extraits

[...] Until the early 1930s, their security policy consisted of contriving as great a degree of disarmament as was consonant with League of Nation membership and of avoiding all commitments not specifically required by the League covenant. And when with the international crises of the 1930s their neutrality entered in contradiction with their membership of the League of Nations, the Scandinavian states decided to repudiate the sanction obligations of article 16 of the League covenant, declaring that they no longer felt obliged to participate to sanctions against an oppressor. [...]

[...] In the post-Cold War period characterised by the emergence of unipolarity and the European reunification (and thus also the Nordic reunification), the security policies of the Nordic countries have evolved towards greater similarity, as they all adapted to the new paradigm, considering the use of military force no longer only a defence posture but also a policy instrument. However, the differences still dominate the similarities, and the cleavages between the Nordic countries' security policies may even have appeared more clearly since 2001, as they have had diverging views on burning issues such as the support to the USA in their anti-terror campaign and the military intervention in Iraq. [...]

[...] However, in practise, there was no clear division between domestic and foreign affairs during the Cold War, and the Soviet Union interfered in Finnish domestic politics. The “Note Crisis” of autumn 1961, that was primarily designed to influence the result of the 1962 presidential contest in Kekkonen's favour, which was successful, is one evidence amongst other of this interference. Moreover, “preventive diplomacy”, that is consulting the Kremlin to avoid an adverse reaction, became part of what was known as “Finlandisation”. [...]

[...] Comparative Perspectives. Pp. 228-246. Lecture Haaland matlary, Janne. “Security policies”. On the 1st march 2007. Nyhamar, Tore (2004). “Security policies from Constraints to Choice”, in Heidar, Knut (ed.). Nordic Politics. [...]

[...] Now that the Nordic countries are free to choose, is the tendency towards greater similarities or towards greater differences between the Nordic countries? II The Nordic post-Cold War security choices: more similarity, however still outweighed by differences The end of the Cold war has made the security policies of the Nordic countries more similar The end of the Cold War has changed tremendously the structure of the international system. Before considering the security choices of the Nordic countries after the end of the Cold War, it is important to draw attention to the transformation of the structure of the international system that followed the fall of the Soviet Union, notably because the new post-Cold War environment has impacted on how the Nordic countries have approached their security policies since the beginning of the 1990s. [...]