On the interface: The Finnish geopolitical tradition in human geography and in IR

Abstract

Geopolitical writing has been more extensive in Finland than in any other Nordic country in recent years. This rejoinder article is a contextualized reading of the development of Finnish geopolitics within both Finnish Human Geography and International Relations academia. It seeks to diversify an argument propounded by Ola Tunander, who scrutinized recent developments in Nordic geopolitical scholarship. Tunander gave some interesting evidence of how a few critical scholars practising geopolitics were able to have a direct impact on political events in Europe in the 1990s and how they challenged the ‘US victory school’ characterized by realist geopolitics. This rejoinder article suggests that the rise of Finnish geopolitics in the 1990s had surprisingly little to do with its policy relevance to region-building or otherwise shaping the political landscape in the European North. The rise of Finnish geopolitics should rather be regarded as an academic process that was inspired by the advances made in Anglo-American critical political geography. While interdisciplinary geopolitical scholarship made a promising start in Finland in the 1990s, recent developments give less reason for optimism. Some challenges for future geopolitical scholarship are also discussed.

Soft Competition: Finland, Sweden and the Northern Dimension of the European Union

“…Rather than relying on the Nordic tradition of togetherness and unity, Sweden and Finland seemed to strive for individualization of their foreign policies (Schumacher ; Von Sydow , 24), each applying different strategies to prevent geopolitical marginalisation (Ingebritsen ; Möller & Bjereld ). As a consequence of its geopolitical awareness (see Moisio & Harle ), Finland aimed to capitalize on its newly gained independence from Soviet Russia by strongly aspiring towards deep integration with Western Europe and by adopting the proactive style of a ‘unilateral Europeanist’ (Ojanen , 408). Sweden in turn first seemed to be pulled into a deep socioeconomic and ideological crisis, which subsequently turned it into a fundamentally pro‐European yet reluctant Member State (Dahl , 176).…”

Interventions in Nordic political geographies

“…This series of interventions is based on a panel discussion organized in Turku, Finland, as part of the Nordic Geographers' Meeting in 2009, where it was observed that the whole issue of Nordic political geographies is a problematic yet interesting one and that very little has been published on the topic e even though scholarship in political geography has mushroomed in some of the Nordic countries over the past fifteen years or so (Moisio & Harle, 2010;O'Loughlin, Raento, & Sidaway, 2008;Stokke & Saether, 2010). Rather than present reviews of political geography in each of the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), each intervention cuts across national boundaries to inquire how political geography e both as a practice and as an academic discipline e simultaneously characterizes and divides the countries of the Nordic region.…”