Latvian Foreign Policy after Enlargement

Abstract

Latvia's transition from Soviet republic to restored nation-state has been most clearly seen in the transition to democracy and the market economy. Externally, however, the Baltic State has had to negotiate complex challenges in both the local and wider security complex. In this essay I argue that the development and evolution of Latvian foreign policy illustrates a transition to post-existential politics and illuminates the nature of geo-politics in the Baltic subregion in general. Initially, Latvia had to create a foreign policy agenda with limited resources such as knowledge and capacity. The 1995 Latvian foreign policy guidelines formally established the move to the 'West' generally as well as membership of the EU and NATO specifically. The guidelines show that the nature of insecurity in the region was by and large dictated by Russian dominance and political transition. With the accession into the EU and NATO, we can see that Latvia's foreign policy objectives have shifted away from balancing in the subregion to integration in the larger security architecture. This includes fulfilling the niche capabilities in the North Atlantic infrastructure as well as engaging with other post-Soviet States as they move towards the 'West'. Furthermore, Latvia's objectives have moved beyond the subregion to include military missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. Overall, I argue that a review of Latvia's foreign policy development illustrates the evolving nature of cooperation and conflict on the threshold between East and West.

Domestic politics and foreign policy change in small states

“…This view on small states can also be found in more recent research, although it is not as common today as it was in the past (e.g. Hey, 2003;Galbreath, 2006;Ringsmose, 2009). After the Cold War, a significant amount of research that challenges the traditional view on small states has been conducted.…”

Against the current: transboundary water management in small states on two continents

“…Scholars in this field, such as Keohane (1969), Panke (2010), Maes and Verdun (2005), Arter (2000) and Galbreath (2006), have explored how small states have transcribed non-alignment and consensus-building abilities into leadership roles in regional and international organizations. This is relevant to international debates over TWM because cross-border water management is increasingly being affected by regional governance (especially in the EU since the implementation of the WFD) (Maganda, 2013).…”

Theory of international relations

“…Apart from the foreign policy and security areas, Small State scholars have also examined the position of the Smaller Member States in relation to: new Treaties and institutional changes (Larsen, 1993;Zbinden, 1998;Galloway, 2002;Bunse, Nicolaidis and Magnette, 2005;Schure and Verdun, 2008;Bunse, 2009;Ojanen, 2009;Grøn and Wivel, 2011); enlargements, with a particular focus initially on the issue of neutrality and the need for adaptation with regard to Austria, Finland and Sweden (Luif, 1995;Gstöhl, 2002;Ferreira-Perreira, 2006;Ojanen, 2008;Wedin, 2008) and later to the Baltic states, mainly with regard to the ESDP and their relationships with the Nordics and Russia (Archer, 1999;Galbreath, 2006;Lamoreaux, and Galbreath, 2008;Männik, 2002;Miniotaite, 2008;Ozalina, 2008;Pastore, 2013). More recently, the economic crisis and the potential of using the EU as a shelter have also received the attention of Small State scholars (Thorhallsson and Kirby, 2012;Bailes and Thorhallsson, 2013;Verdun, 2013;Jones, 2013;Fioretos, 2013).…”