17. The Nordic countries and EU security policy: convergent or divergent agendas? Pernille Rieker* I. Introduction While the Nordic countries are similar in many respects, they have had different positions on and approaches to the European Security and Defence Policy and the European Union’s security policy in general. These differences have par- tially been a result of their different formal relations with the EU: two are full members—Finland and Sweden; one is a member with an ‘opt-out’ in security matters—Denmark; and one is an ‘associated’ member—Norway.1 Also, and perhaps more importantly, these differences are a result of different national security policy traditions: there are two neutral or non-aligned states—Finland and Sweden; and two are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization— Denmark and Norway. During the cold war period, the security policies of the Nordic countries were often understood as creating a ‘Nordic balance’: a combination of policies that aimed at preserving a balance between the two superpowers, the USA and the Soviet Union.2 While the end of the cold war paved the way for a different and more complex security approach, it took some time before the Nordic countries responded to this new security context. Despite their differences and owing to their geographical location, they all continued to maintain a rather traditional security policy, emphasizing either territorial defence or the military aspects of security for longer than most of their European counterparts.3 Today, important changes seem to have taken place in all of the Nordic countries in the direction 1 Iceland, which, like Norway, is ‘associated’ with the EU through the European Economic Area and is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is not considered in this chapter. 2 This concept was developed by Arne Olav Brundtland as describing the Nordic countries’ security policies during the cold war period. For further detail see Brundtland, A. O., ‘Nordisk balanse før og nå’ [The Nordic balance past and present], Internasjonal Politikk, no. 5 (1966), pp. 491–541; and Brundtland, A. O., The Nordic Balance and its Possible Relevance for Europe (Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt: Oslo, 1981). Finland’s close relationship with the Soviet Union and Norway’s strong Atlantic orientation was of particular importance here. See also the Introduction to this volume. 3 While Denmark initiated a transformation of its military forces in the early 1990s, the ‘dominant security discourse’ (as expressed by the Danish Ministry of Defence) still continues to be focused on the military aspects of security. * This chapter was written with financial assistance from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence. The author would like to thank Kristin Marie Haugevik for her assistance. 302 THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THEIR REGION AND EUROPE of a more comprehensive security approach. These changes seem to have been initiated or accelerated in response to the European integration process.4 The argument of this chapter is twofold. First, the Nordic countries’ security approaches, which have traditionally diverged, are increasingly converging and that this process started with the end of the cold war. Second, this convergence must be seen in relation to the European integration process and the develop- ment of EU security policy. It is this process of ‘Europeanization’ that is the focus of the chapter. Section II starts with a clarification of what is meant by ‘EU security policy’. While some look only at the ESDP process, a broader approach is advocated here that also includes the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU’s counter-terrorism efforts and the European Commission’s activities in the area of conflict prevention. Section III reviews developments in the Nordic coun- tries’ security approaches since the early 1990s and discusses whether and to what extent it is possible to argue that they have been Europeanized. In particu- lar, it examines the impact of three important changes in the EU: the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht and the establishment of the CFSP;5 the 1998 Anglo- French St Malo summit as a milestone in the creation of the ESDP; and the adoption of the European Security Strategy (ESS), a constitution for the EU and the concretization of what is here called ‘a comprehensive European security policy’ in 2003–2004. Section IV makes some overall comparisons on the basis of these findings and draws some conclusions. II. EU security policy: more than the European Security and Defence Policy It is no longer sufficient to look only at the ESDP when discussing the EU’s security policy. In fact, the ESDP is, at least as it is most often defined, only one part of the EU’s security policy. It is difficult or perhaps impossible to isol- ate the ESDP not only from the rest of the EU’s foreign and security policy, but also from the EU’s activities with regard to external relations and the fight against terrorism. The ESS, adopted in December 2003,6 provides a much better indication than any previous EU document of what the Union’s security policy is all about: a comprehensive approach to security.7 4 Rieker, P., ‘Europeanisation of Nordic security: the EU and the changing security identities of the Nordic states’, Doctoral thesis, University of Oslo, Department of Political Science, 2004; and Rieker, P., ‘Europeanisation of Nordic security? The EU and the changing security identities of the Nordic states’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 39, no. 4 (2004), pp. 369–92. 5 The Treaty on European Union (Treaty of Maastricht) was signed on 29 July 1992 and entered into force on 1 Nov. 1993. The consolidated text of the treaty as amended is available at URL <http://europa. eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/index.htm>. 6 Council of the European Union, ‘A secure Europe in a better world: European Security Strategy’, Brussels, 12 Dec. 2003, URL <http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.ASP?id=266>. 7 Rieker, Doctoral thesis (note 4). THE NORDIC COUNTRIES AND EU SECURITY POLICY 303 This indicates that the discussion about EU security policy cannot be separ- ated from a discussion about the concept of security. In fact, whether or not one agrees that the EU has developed a distinct approach to security depends on how one defines ‘security’. While there is general agreement that there is a relationship between integration and security, those who defend a more trad- itional and more militarily focused definition of security still tend to ignore the EU as an important security actor. The EU’s persistent lack of any military power that is comparable to that of the USA makes it difficult for these trad- itionalists to characterize the EU in this way.8 For those who understand secur- ity in a broader sense, however, the situation will look quite different. For them, the EU’s potential to coordinate diverse tools of security policy—economic, political and military—makes it one of the most important security actors of the post-cold war period.9 Not surprisingly, it is also the latter view that is emphasized by the EU itself (represented by both the Commission and the Council of the European Union) through its official documents and speeches. While existing multilateral security policy frameworks, such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), have also adapted to the new security context, the most interesting development has occurred within the EU. This is because the EU is the only multilateral frame- work without a security policy legacy from the cold war period. While this may be understood as reflecting a certain reluctance by the member states to relin- quish national sovereignty in the traditional security area, it is precisely this reluctance that seems to have facilitated the development of a somewhat ‘innovative’ approach to security—an approach that emphasizes the value of combining different security policy tools. What, then, is the precise content of this comprehensive EU security policy? Is it more than just wishful thinking and declarations? There are in fact many concrete manifestations of this policy, which are looked at here under the cat- egories of external and internal security policy. The most obvious examples of a comprehensive external security policy are the EU’s enlargement process, the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts, and the increased focus on civilian and military ‘integrated missions’ within the ESDP framework, which include the missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Examples 8 Bull, H., ‘Civilian power Europe: a contradiction in terms?’, ed. L. Tsoukalis, The European Com- munity: Past, Present and Future (Blackwell: London, 1983); Walt, S. M., ‘The renaissance of security studies’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 35 (1999), pp. 211–39; and Hill, C., ‘The capability– expectation gap, or conceptualizing Europe's international role’, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 31, no. 3 (1993), pp. 305–28. 9 Wæver, O., ‘Identity, integration and security: solving the sovereignty puzzle in EU studies’, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 48, no. 2 (1995), pp. 46–86; Sjursen, H., ‘New forms of security policy in Europe’, ARENA Working Paper 01/4, ARENA–Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Oslo, 2001, URL <http://www.arena.uio.no/publications/>; and Manners, I., ‘European [security] Union: from existential threat to ontological security’, COPRI Working Paper 2002/5, Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI), Copenhagen, 2002, URL <http://www.diis.dk/sw3416.asp>. 304 THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THEIR REGION AND EUROPE of a comprehensive internal security policy are the various efforts made in both the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) and European Community (EC) pillars of the EU to combat terrorism and to provide civilian protection.10 In addition, there is a growing recognition among EU actors that the internal–external divide is becoming less sharp, making it appropriate to use external tools for internal purposes and vice versa.