Master of Arts Thesis Euroculture Uppsala University University of Groningen Alone is Strong? A study of the parliamentary foreign policy and defence debates in Sweden and Finland following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 Submitted by: Paulina Ek First university: Uppsala University Second university: University of Groningen Supervised by: Johan Matz, Uppsala University C.M. (Ine) Megens, University of Groningen Groningen, 1 June 2017 Signature: MA Programme Euroculture Declaration I, Paulina Ek, hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Alone is strong? A study of the parliamentary foreign policy and defence debates in Sweden and Finland following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014”, submitted as partial requirement for the MA Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography. I declare that the written (printed and bound) and the electronic copy of the submitted MA thesis are identical. I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture. Signed ………………………………………….. Date ………1 June 2017………………. 2 Table of content: 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Aim and Research Question ...................................................................................................................... 5 2. Theory ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Securitization Theory................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Why Finland and Sweden? ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Political Discourse Analysis and Social Constructionism ................................................................. 13 3.2.1The Parliamentary Debate as a Deliberative Act .................................................................................. 16 3.3 Selection of Material .................................................................................................................................. 20 4. Background ......................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1 Russia’s Annexation of Crimea ............................................................................................................... 22 4.2 The Parliaments .......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.4 Neutrality, Non-alignment and Defence Policies in Sweden and Finland ..................................... 26 5. Presentation of Research ................................................................................................................. 33 5.1 Sweden ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 5.1.1 How is the Russian threat perceived? Which are the presented approaches? ................................. 33 5.2 Finland ........................................................................................................................................................... 40 5.2.1 How is the Russian threat perceived? Which are the presented approaches? ................................. 40 6. Comparative Analysis: Similarities and Differences in Views and Approaches ................ 52 6.1 Securitization Theory................................................................................................................................. 52 6.2 Suggested Approaches ............................................................................................................................... 55 6.3 How the Russian Threat is Viewed ......................................................................................................... 58 7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 62 Bibliography: .......................................................................................................................................... 65 * The title of the thesis refers to the Swedish proverb “ensam är stark”, meaning that one can accomplish a lot on one’s own. 3 1. Introduction The world is currently experiencing growing political unrest, which has lead to some military and foreign policy experts going so far as to talking about a new Cold War.1 The reasons for the growing unrest are many, but an initial spark was the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014.2 Hence, the talked about Cold War has the same players as the actual Cold War that got its ending with the fall of the Soviet Union, namely Russia and the West. The changing political landscape has forced Europe and the US to think differently in terms of military and defence, and especially Europe is struggling with finding a path forward, as the newly installed president of the United States, Donald Trump, has, from Europe’s point of view, given worrisome statements about the American NATO membership and financing. In addition to that, his positive approach towards Putin and Russia has made many European leaders and policy makers scratch their heads in confusion.3 In Europe, the playground for this crisis cannot only be found in Ukraine, but also in NATO’s eastern flank, and more specifically in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which all used to be part of the USSR. These are countries that NATO currently views as its most exposed members, and as a means of protecting these states, NATO has sent more troops to the area.4 If the changing political landscape has affected major institutions such as the EU and NATO, it has naturally also affected the domestic politics of most European countries, a concrete example is the raised military spending.5 Two countries struggling with figuring out how to best respond to the growing Russian threat in particular, are Sweden and Finland. For these countries, their geographical location is the main reason that they have to rethink their strategies, as Finland has the longest European border with Russia, and Sweden and Finland both are in the Baltic Sea region, which is a region with specific geopolitical importance, as it gives access to not only the Nordic and Baltic countries, but also other northern parts of continental Europe. These countries 1 Oliphant, R. ”Russia and the West have entered a new Cold War’” The Telegraph, 23 October 2016. Accessed 2 January 2017. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/22/unyielding-russia-and-us-heading-for-a-new-cold-war/ 2 Wintour, P., Harding, L., Borger, J. ”Cold war 2.0: how Russia and the west reheated a historic struggle”. The Guardian, 24 October 2016. Accessed 16 March 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/cold-war-20-how-russia- and-the-west-reheated-a-historic-struggle 3 Nguyen, T. ”Donald Trump just offered Putin Exactly What He Wants”. Vanity Fair, 16 January 2017. Accessed 16 March 2017. Available: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-nato-russia-interview 4 Shlapak, D. A., Johnson, M. ”Reinforcing Deterrence on NATO's Eastern Flank: Wargaming the Defense of the Baltics”. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016. Accessed: 16 January 2017. Available: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html. 5 Daniels, J. ”Defense budgets climb as NATO countries step up spending” CNBC, 20 December 2016. Accessed: 23 May 2017. Available: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/19/defense-budgets-climb-as-nato-countries-step-up-spending.html 4 are also interesting cases since none of them are members of NATO and they both have a policy of non-alignment. During recent years, they have both been exposed to Russian violation of both air space and national waters, together with cyber threats.6 The Russian annexation of Crimea, together with the threats experienced, as well as the history that the countries share with Russia, have triggered a more serious debate on how the countries should and could defend themselves.7 1.1. Aim and Research Question The broader aim of this thesis is to investigate what the foreign policy and security debates in these two countries, that officially “stand alone”, have looked like after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. Sweden and Finland are quite homogenous countries and they both, to quite a large extent, face the same issues when it comes to Russian threat, mostly due to their geographical locations. However, they have over the years taken slightly different diplomatic routes in the ways they deal with Russia, with Finland being more moderate in expressing heavy critique towards its eastern neighbor, compared to Sweden. By conducting this study, the goal is