The Nordic–Baltic Area: Divisive Geopolitics at Work

Mouritzen, Hans

doi:10.1080/09557570600869556

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a 'super-Atlanticist,' Denmark wholeheartedly supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, joining the Coalition of the Willing, whilst other smaller NATO members, such as Belgium, Norway, and Greece, voiced criticism of the operation [11]. In this respect, Hans Mouritzen notes that, despite competition between Copenhagen and Stockholm for informal leadership in the Baltic region, as well as for the status of the principal advocate of the Baltic States' Euro-Atlantic integration to the US in the 1990s, Sweden's and Norway's commitment to peacekeeping and UN institutions proved more persistent than that of Denmark [12].…”

Section: Introduction Expert Discussion On Status and Reputation In D...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reputation and status in Denmark’s strategic culture

Belukhin,

Vorotnikov,

Dianina

2023

Balt. Reg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of the article is to evaluate the significance of status and allied reputation within Denmark’s strategic culture. Amongst Danish international relations scholars, there is a well-established notion that one of the key motivations for the use of military force in Danish foreign policy was the aspiration to cultivate special relations with the United States and achieve the status of a privileged ally. This status would confirm guarantees for Denmark’s national security, provide the country with an opportunity for distinctive influence in decision-making and agenda-setting in NATO, the EU, and transatlantic cooperation. A qualitative content analysis of the 2017—2018, 2019—2020 and 2022 Danish foreign policy strategies was carried out to determine the effect of such expert perceptions on the texts of the guiding foreign policy documents. The analysis highlighted and confirmed the ‘super Atlanticism’ tendencies in Denmark’s contemporary strategic culture, revealing its close ties with the Danish perception of the US as the safeguard for the liberal world order and associated multilateral institutions. Denmark’s value-driven militarised foreign political activism in the post-Cold War era is thus not only pragmatic but also ideological as it seeks to promote liberal values, democracy and human rights under American leadership. The article concludes that factoring in status and reputation in strategic culture studies may complement the explanations of security community formation, alliance strategies and the dynamics behind relations within different types of alliances.

show abstract

Section: Introduction Expert Discussion On Status and Reputation In D...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reputation and status in Denmark’s strategic culture

Belukhin,

Vorotnikov,

Dianina

2023

Balt. Reg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nordiske sikkerheds-og forsvarspolitiske dilemmaer handlede ikke laengere om solidaritet med det ene eller andet nordiske land, men derimod om deltagelse i FN-eller USA-ledede interventioner ude i verden. Danmarks 'superatlantisme' (Mouritzen, 2006) efter 2001 -isaer Irak-interventionen i marts 2003 uden klart FN-mandat -var vanskelig at forstå for de andre nordiske lande, selv for Danmarks norske NATO-allierede.…”

Section: Geopolitiske Og Idiosynkratiske Barrierer For Nordisk Samarbunclassified

Fire nordiske Ruslands-relationer. På vej mod en fællesnordisk Ruslands-politik efter Krim og Trump?

Mouritzen

2019

Internasjonal Politikk

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rusland er en vigtig aktør for de nordiske lande ikke bare i Østersø-området, men også i Barents-regionen og i Arktis. For at opnå et fuldgyldigt billede af de involverede dynamikker bør de enkelte nordiske landes Ruslandsrelationer studeres samlet. De dansk-russiske, norsk-russiske, svensk-russiske og finsk-russiske relationer har udviklet sig ret forskelligt siden år 2000. Der eksisterer to barrierer for nordisk sikkerhedspolitisk samarbejde: (1) landenes forskellige geografiske beliggenhed og (2) bestemte indbyrdes idiosynkrasier, der ofte bunder i forskellige opfattelser af deres faelles historie. Derfor har det traditionelt vaeret muligt for stormagter at praktisere 'del og hersk' i forhold til de nordiske lande, og det synes også at vaere lykkedes for Rusland siden år 2000. Men i kølvandet på Ukraine-konflikten og valget af Donald Trump til USA's praesident er der sket en konvergens mellem trusselsopfattelserne og dermed de geopolitiske interesser i de nordiske hovedstaeder. I fravaer af idiosynkrasier vil det nordiske sikkerheds-og forsvarspolitiske samarbejde derfor blive styrket, om end en faelles Ruslands-politik er urealistisk. Alle fire lande, ikke mindst Sverige, står over for vanskelige dilemmaer. Nøgleord: bilaterale relationer • del og hersk • nordisk samarbejde • Rusland • småstater I kølvandet på opstanden i Kiev og kuppet mod det pro-russiske styre i februar 2014 planlagde Sveriges udenrigsminister Carl Bildt en nordisk manifestation i byen. Tanken

show abstract

“…Another type of neo-realism works with regional balances of power and lessons of the past combined with the global balance of power (Mouritzen, 2006). Lessons of the past may lead a country into fearing certain regional power constellations, which in turn may lead to attempts to lean against a stronger power from the outside.…”

Section: Explanations For the State Of Affairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As for the first type, one would assume that the focus was almost exclusively on the US, which is clearly not the case for Denmark or any other EU member state or other states. As for the variant above, which assumes a joint Euro-Atlantic polarity, the cultural, historical, identity reasons for the national choices between the two sides of the pole are underplayed or possibly attributed to 'lessons of the past' (Mouritzen, 2006). Also the status of 'core member' or 'near-core member' seems to describe a relationship to the pole as a whole, and does not address the central question of which of the two parts of the pole is the more important (Mouritzen and Wivel, 2005…”

Section: Explanations For the State Of Affairsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the coming to power of the Liberal-Conservative government in November 2001, the role of the US in Danish foreign and security policy has been articulated as more important (Petersen, 2004(Petersen, , 2006Rynning, 2006;Mouritzen, 2006). This has been stated explicitly by the government (Møller, 2006).…”

Section: The Dominant Discourse On 'The Us' and 'The Eu' Since 2001mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Danish Foreign Policy and the Balance between the EU and the US

Larsen

2009

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the international debate, it is often argued that Denmark, in its major foreign policy priorities, has sided with the United States (US) since the Cold War rather than with the European Union (EU) or its European partners. I examine whether this is correct, and if it is, why this is so, since 2001. I also ask whether a different theoretical approach, namely discourse analysis, would lead to findings different from those of the dominant approaches. I first present various ways of explaining why a country chooses the balance that it does between the EU and the US. One particular approach, post-structuralist discourse analysis, is applied. The balance between the EU and the US in the dominant Danish discourse is analysed. I outline the policy level and attempt to map where Danish policies are conducted with the EU and the US, respectively. I show that the EU is the most important partner across foreign policy areas since 2001, despite ad hoc foreign policy cooperation with the US, and that this is due to a dominant discourse articulating the EU as `our most important alliance'. However, the US is the most important partner on military security issues based on a discourse articulating cooperation with the US as a central part of Danish foreign policy identity and an `offensive foreign policy'.

show abstract

The Nordic–Baltic Area: Divisive Geopolitics at Work

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

Reputation and status in Denmark’s strategic culture

Reputation and status in Denmark’s strategic culture

Fire nordiske Ruslands-relationer. På vej mod en fællesnordisk Ruslands-politik efter Krim og Trump?

Danish Foreign Policy and the Balance between the EU and the US

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About