The Nordic countries and European Integration at the End of the Cold War

The fall of the Berlin wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union had a profound impact on Northern Europe and brought dramatic change to the Nordic countries’ relationship with the emerging European Union. Almost immediately the end of bipolarity weakened the so called “neutrality argument”, allowing Sweden and Finland to become EU-members in 1995. Also in Norway the perception of European integration as an exclusively Western enterprise changed with the perspective of enlargement and the fear of being left behind became stronger with the EU’s plans for further political and economic integration. In this country, however, the traditional reluctance to give up national sovereignty proved stronger than the interest in obtaining full membership rights. Moreover, with the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement EFTA was already in the process of negotiating a comprehensive association scheme. Until today, Norway, together with Iceland and Liechtenstein, relies on the EEA-agreement for access to the Common Market and participates in a range of other EU-agreements and activities. At the other extreme, Finland has moved directly to the core of the EU, adopting the EURO and becoming a kind of Musterknabe. Sweden has adopted a position similar to the one Denmark assumed after its entry in 1973, opting out of key areas. Instead of comprising all the Nordic countries, the European Union now includes the Baltic States, and the EU’s northern dimension (a Finnish initiative) focuses on the Baltic Sea rather than on the Atlantic.

Under the overarching question how the end of the cold war shaped the Nordic countries’ attitudes towards European integration, the papers presented by the panel will focus on one or several of the following aspects:

• Geography and regional perspectives

What is Northern Europe and what are the fellow traits of the Nordic countries? Northern Europe, and even more so Scandinavia, is often regarded as a homogenous entity. There are convincing arguments for this perspective, among them the closeness of Nordic cooperation and the self perception of the Nordics as promoters of democracy, peace, welfare, and gender equality. However, the Nordic countries also have a tradition of choosing different security affiliations and divergent paths towards economic and political cooperation. The breakdown of the Soviet Union and the eastern enlargement of both EU and NATO have produced an even more heterogeneous map of organisations, alliances and affiliations.

• Chronology and periodization

The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 clearly was the climax of the revolutionary events changing the map of Europe. However, the Nordic countries’ attitude towards the process of European integration was often determined by regional and national elements, as well. A differentiated chronology is needed putting weight on key-developments such as the Single European Act and the economic crises in Finland and Sweden in the second half of the 1980s, as well as the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Maastricht treaty in the early nineties.

• Elites, pressure groups and public opinion

Why did some governments file an application for membership at a particular moment and why did others wait as long as possible? Why did some countries succeed in winning a referendum whereas others did not? In the Nordic countries these questions were (and still are) to a large extent determined by the attitudes of party fractions, interest groups and public opinion. This is why any analysis of the Nordic countries’ European policies has to go beyond state and government level. More than a political left-right divide the European question in the Nordic countries has often been affected by cleavages between elites and grassroots, centre and periphery, industry and agriculture etc. When asking why elites often developed a positive attitude towards European cooperation the examination of national and transnational socialisation processes is equally important.

• Identity and pragmatism

Was the application for EC-membership a victory of hard-nosed pragmatism (i.e. economic and strategic interests) over a vaguely defined Nordic identity that included both a social democratic vision for welfare policy and a strong motivation for bridge-building and peacemaking? Had the perception of superiority often attached to this identity to be weakened by economic crisis to make EC-membership possible? Is it easier to defend the Nordic model staying outside the EU? Or have Sweden, Finland and Denmark succeeded in maintaining key elements of their Nordic identity and even succeeded in transferring parts of the Nordic model to the EU? The panel will have to bear in mind the diversity of concepts and approaches that have been shaped by national traditions and interests.

• Continuity and change

The strong focus on change and transformation brought about by the end of the cold war has to be balanced by an assessment of elements of continuity. In fact, both the reluctance towards the abstention of sovereignty and the interest in close and comprehensive relations with Western Europe are as present today as they were in the 1960s. With the exception of Finland, the former outsider turned Musterknabe, the Nordics are still reluctant Europeans and often awkward partners. There seems to be much continuity also in the way Northern Europe is perceived from its EU and NATO partners, that is, as a stable, unproblematic (even boring) region. The interest in the so called High North as a strategic area, somewhat reduced after the end of bipolarity, has recently taken up due to this region’s energy resources.

• The state of research

Membership negotiations in 1993/94 were accompanied by a considerable amount of political and bureaucratic evaluation, and they were subject to comprehensive journalistic and academic scrutiny. This has led contemporary analysts to state that “the reasons why Sweden, Finland and Norway decided to apply for full membership between 1991 and 1992 are well documented and explained […]” (Miles 1996: 63). In recent years, however, the question whether international, regional or national developments have determined the Nordic-EU relationship continued to engage researchers (Elvert/Kaiser 2004). Moreover, the Nordic region and its distinctive approach to international and regional integration have continued to puzzle theorists of international relations (Gstöhl 2002). The panel will present the current state of research and will discuss the need for further examination, for example through multiperspective and multiarchival historical case studies.

On the basis of the analysis developed in these areas, the working group will draw policy-driven lessons on possible orientations for EU action on the continent. The results of the group’s collaboration, which will translate into a series of original working papers, will be presented in workshops and in publications. The working group will try to interact as much as possible with policy-makers through the dissemination of its conclusions via policy briefs and through the participation in seminars and policy studies.

Changing horses in the middle of the stream – A re-evaluation of the Nordic countries’ decision to opt for EC-membership in 1991 (Robin M. Allers, Oslo)

The events at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s have been characterized as an “acceleration of history” (Jacques Delors), both with regard to the international context and to the development of European integration. By 1990 the Nordic countries had already reacted to the latter process, participating in negotiations between EC and EFTA for the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement. Sweden’s surprising move towards membership in 1991 then forced Finland and Norway to follow suit. The paper takes a fresh look at the question why the EEA-option was abandoned. After all, a comprehensive association agreement jointly negotiated by EFTA had been regarded as the best possible solution since the end of the 1950s. The paper argues that the change of attitude was first of all due to the dynamism in the international and regional context, combined with the realization that the EEA agreement would leave EFTA in a position of de facto inferiority towards the EU. However, the move towards full membership can also be interpreted as the logical result of a continuing process of rapprochement between the Nordics and Europe beginning in the 1960s.

The idiom alluded to in the title suggests that changing horses in the middle of the stream is a risky move. Looking at the outcome of the negotiations, the Swedish and Finnish governments managed the challenge rather well, guiding their countries alongside Austria into the emerging European Union. The Norwegian government, on the other hand, failed once again to persuade its electorate and had to fall back on the EEA agreement. Since then, as in the aftermath of 1972, the membership question is put on ice. This leads to the interesting but speculative question if it needs a comparably dramatic accumulation of changes in the international system (e.g. the current financial crisis) to produce a renewed application from the remaining Nordic countries, or if gradual Europeanization will make their current status intolerable from a democratic point of view.

The effect of the 1989 revolution on Norway’s relationship with the EU (Lise Rye & Kristian Steinnes, Trondheim)

Three years after the fall of the Berlin wall, in November 1992, the Norwegian labour government of Gro Harlem Brundtland submitted an application for membership of the European Union (EU). The application, which was Norway’s fourth of the kind, was prompted by the applications of Sweden and Finland, from July 1991 and March 1992 respectively. In autumn 1994 referenda over the question of membership where held in all three Nordic countries. While a majority of the Finnish and Swedish voters approved of their governments’ policies, 52.3% of the Norwegian voters rejected the Brundtland government’s bid for EU membership.
The government’s decision sparked a tensed debate on Norway’s relationship with Europe. The purpose of our paper will be to discuss to what degree this debate was influenced by the new geo-political situation following the end of the Cold war. The second question we address is why the Norwegian government failed to bring Norway into the EU. To what degree did arguments related to the new geo-political situation influence the debate leading up to the referendum as well as voting behavior?

The paper will be based on governmental reports, parliamentary debates, campaign material produced by the leading civil society organizations (No to EU and the European Movement in Norway) as well as newspapers.

Still reluctant Europeans? 1989 and its impact on Nordic euroscepticism (Carsten Schymik, Berlin)

Northern Europe was long described as a stronghold of euroscepticism. Especially the Nordic countries – Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland – acquired a reputation of being ‘reluctant Europeans’ (Toivo Miljan, 1977). Consequently, Denmark was the only country in the region that had become a member of the EU during the Cold War, while the other Nordic countries kept a distance to Europe. Today, twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the situation has changed almost completely. The paper will deal with the watershed year of 1989 and its impact on the overall relationship of the Nordic countries with the European Union: Did the end of the Cold War really change Nordic attitudes toward European integration? – I will address this question by focusing on the historical development of Nordic euroscepticism, which is primarily reflected in extra-parliamentary opposition movements against the EU. These so-called ‘people’s movements’ – some date back to the early 1960s – have become established and influential actors in domestic debates on European issues, but they have rarely been the focus of academic inquiry. Hence the presentation will describe the movements’ emergence and long-term development. It will also analyse why the movements oppose European integration and, in this context, to what extent their perception of the EU has changed as a consequence of the end of the Cold War. I will argue that 1989 was less crucial for the transformation of Nordic-European relations than is commonly believed. Certainly, the end of the Cold War era proved to be catalyst of Northern Europe’s integration in the EU. However, the main motive of the Nordic governments to turn towards the EU was the Single Market project, which had been launched several years earlier with the Commission’s White Book and the subsequent adoption of the Single European Act. In other words, it was economic rather than political considerations that made the EU more appealing in Nordic eyes. Nordic euroscepticism, on the other hand, was always primarily based on political arguments, which means that 1989 ultimately strengthened opposition to the EU, at least in the short-term.

A Baltic “Blue Banana” – 1989 and Regional Cooperation in Northern Europe (Norbert Götz, Helsinki)

During the Cold War, regional cooperation in the Baltic Sea region did not go beyond a functional minimum in the areas of environmental protection and resource management in fishing. The removal of the ‘Iron Curtain’, which cut the Baltic sea region in a Northwestern capitalist and a Southeastern communist domain, triggered a regional cooperation project across the former dividing line that was unique in Europe. The paper explores the various attempts of re-mapping the Baltic sea area after 1989, a process by which the Baltic sea has been turned almost into an EU inland sea, and discusses its foreign policy and security policy implications.

Working Group coordinator/Contact

Robin M. Allers, Forum for Contemporary History, University of Oslo; e-mail: robin.allers@iakh.uio.no  

Members

Dr. Robin M. Allers (panel organiser) is Research fellow at the Forum for Contemporary History at the University of Oslo, where he coordinates the project “External dimensions of European integration – The EC/EU and the Nordic countries in international politics”. He received his PhD in history from the University of Hamburg in 2007. Recent publications include Besondere Beziehungen – Deutschland, Norwegen und Europa in der Ära Brandt (1966-1974), Bonn (Dietz-Verlag) 2009.

Dr. Norbert Götz is Docent of Social Science History and works at the Centre for Nordic Studies, Renvall Institute, University of Helsinki. Publications include many articles in leading journals as well as the dissertation Ungleiche Geschwister: Die Konstruktion von nationalsozialistischer Volksgemeinschaft und schwedischem Volksheim (Baden-Baden 2001), the edited volumes Civil Society in the Baltic Sea Region (Aldershot 2003), Die Ordnung des Raums: Mentale Landkarten in der Ostseeregion (Berlin 2006) and Regional Cooperation and International Organizations: The Nordic Model in Transnational Alignment (London 2009).

Dr. Lise Rye is Associate Professor at the Department of History and Classical Studies at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. She received her PhD in history in 2004 on the thesis The Rise and Fall of the French Demand for Social Harmonization in the EEC, 1955-1966 (Trondheim Studies in History, 2004). Recent publications include “The Origins of Community information policy: Educating Europeans” in Kaiser, Leucht and Rasmussen (eds.): The History of the European Union. Origins of a trans- and supranational polity 1950-72. Routledge 2009.

Dr. Carsten Schymik is senior researcher at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) in Berlin. Recent publications include Europäische Anti-Föderalisten – Volksbewegungen gegen die Europäische Union in Skandinavien, Berlin/Leipzig (Kirchhof und Franke) 2006 and with Sten Berglund, Kjetil Duvold and Joakim Ekman: Where does Europe end? Borders limits and directions of the EU, Cheltenham (Edward Elgar) fothcoming 2009.

Kristian Steinnes is associate professor at the Department of Modern Languages/European Studies, at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He currently works on a study of the British Labour Party’s European Policies 1958–72. Recent publications include “Socialist party networks in northern Europe: Moving towards the EEC applications of 1967” in Kaiser, Leucht and Rasmussen (eds.): The History of the European Union. Origins of a trans- and supranational polity 1950-72. Routledge 2009.

last modified: 2010-03-10