From Peacemaker to Warmonger? Explaining Denmark's Great Power Politics

Abstract

Danish post-Cold War security policy is typically portrayed as a transformation from an anti-militaristic and multilateralist member of a Nordic bloc in international relations promoting international solidarity and global peace into an activist proponent of a liberal world order to be defended by military means when necessary. Focusing on Danish peace policy, this article puts forward a contending analysis arguing that what appears as change entails a considerable amount of continuity. Now, as in the past, the Danish contribution to international peace reflects a combination of international demand and the ability and willingness of Danish policy-makers to meet this demand in accordance with their liberal-egalitarian values and pragmatic approach to international relations.

Introduction to Special Issue: Bound to be peaceful? The changing approach of Western European small states to peace

“…Also Denmark clearly kept a fundamentally value‐oriented foreign policy dimension in parallel to its NATO membership. Whereas it saw the latter as a ‘necessity’, other parts of its norm‐driven foreign policy were seen as ‘choice’ (Wivel ). Thus, in spite of their fundamental difference ( i.e ., their promise to support their alliance member in case of war compared to neutrals, who promised exactly the opposite, i.e.…”

“…NATO was seen as a pragmatic solution to its security problem. The Danish defence budget was viewed more as a membership fee paying for protection than as an option for active participation in collective defence (Wivel ; Ringsmose ). To Denmark, peace promotion through détente was not as much a question of national security as it was a question of promoting a specific set of values associated with Danish society.…”

“…To Denmark, peace promotion through détente was not as much a question of national security as it was a question of promoting a specific set of values associated with Danish society. It allowed the Danes to project an image of Denmark as a social‐democratic, peace‐loving, well‐intentioned nation (Wivel ).…”

“…Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway all contributed to the Nordic bloc, which saw itself as being a security community internally and an active and progressive actor externally – particularly in regard to peace and disarmament. The participating countries conceived their security community as a basis for their engagement at the global scale (Wivel ; Waever ).…”

“…Being a NATO member, Denmark opposed its own ideals against the political logic of the then superpowers. From 1982 to 1988, for example, it responded to a hardened US rhetoric towards the Soviet Union and intensification of the Cold War by footnoting a series of communiqués, thereby expressing Danish dissatisfaction with superpower relations (Petersen ; Wivel ). The Norwegian engagement for peace was remarkable too.…”