Small States Security
Small States Security
Small States Security
Security
This book explains what ‘small’ states are and explores their current security chal-
lenges, in general terms and through specific examples. It reflects the shift from
traditional security definitions emphasizing defence and armaments, to new
security concerns such as economic, societal and environmental security where
institutional cooperation looms larger. These complex issues, linked with tradi-
tional power relations and new types of actors, need to be tackled with due regard
to democracy and good governance. Key policy challenges for small states are
examined and applied in the regional case studies.
The book deals mainly with the current experience and recent past of such
states but also offers insights for their future policies. Although many of the states
covered are European, the study also includes African, Caribbean and Asian small
states. Their particular interest and relevance is outlined, as is the connection
between their security challenges and their smallness. Policy lessons for other
states are then sought.
The book is the first in-depth, multi-continent study of security as an aspect of
small state governance today. It is novel in placing the security dilemmas of small
states in the context of wider ideas on international and institutional change, and in
dealing with non-European states and regions.
Alyson J.K. Bailes is a former British diplomat and Director of the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute, now working as an Adjunct Professor at the
University of Iceland and a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe. Security
studies are her speciality.
PART I
Small state security revisited: history, concepts, theory 1
PART II
Small state security in Europe 93
PART III
Comparative insights 185
Index 255
Figures
Clive Archer was, until 2009, Director of the Manchester European Research
Institute at Manchester Metropolitan University. From 2009–2012, he was an
Emeritus Professor at MMU and an individual research member of the Oslo-
based Geopolitics of the High North research group; he remains part of a
brains-trust on the future of the Nordic region. His publications include
Norway Outside the European Union (Routledge 2005), ‘The Stoltenberg
Report and Nordic Security: Big Idea, Small Steps’, in Nanna Hvidt and Hans
Mouritzen (eds) Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook (Danish Institute of Inter-
national Affairs 2010, pp. 43–74) and ‘Norway and the United Kingdom in
the High North’, in Helge Pharo and Patrick Salmon (eds) Britain and
Norway: Special Relationships (Akademika Forlag 2012, pp. 309–334). He
has been granted honours by the King of Norway and the President of Fin-
land.
Alyson J.K. Bailes is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Iceland in Rey-
kjavik and a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, specializ-
ing in security studies. In her former career she was a UK diplomat and, from
2002–2007, served as Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI). She has published extensively on issues of European
security, regional security governance, arms control, and the roles of non-
state actors. Her recent work has focused more on the Arctic and on small
state issues and includes the monograph Does a Small State need a Strategy?
(University of Iceland 2009), as well as articles on Scotland’s choices as a
small state in the event of independence.
Godfrey Baldacchino (PhD Warwick) is Professor of Sociology at the Univer-
sity of Malta, Malta; Visiting Professor of Island Tourism at the Universita’
di Corsica Pascal Paoli, Corte, France; and the outgoing Canada Research
Chair (Island Studies) at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. He
is the Executive Editor of Island Studies Journal and the Vice-President of
the International Small Islands Studies Association (ISISA). His recent books
include Island Enclaves (McGill-Queen’s University Press 2010); Divided
Islands (Palgrave Macmillan 2012); and Independence Movements from Sub-
national Island Jurisdictions (Routledge 2013, co-author Eve Hepburn).
xvi Contributors
Alan Chong is Associate Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies based in Singapore, but he earned his doctorate at the London School
of Economics and Political Science. He has published widely on the notion of
soft power and the role of ideas in constructing the international relations of
Singapore and of Asia generally. His publications have appeared in The
Pacific Review; International Relations of the Asia-Pacific; Review of Inter-
national Studies; Politics, Religion and Ideology; Armed Forces and Society;
and Alternatives: Global, Local, Political.
Ruxandra Lupu Dinesen is a former research assistant at the Danish Institute
for International Studies and is now a PhD candidate at the Department of
Political Science in the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Her research
focuses on how the European Union responds to mass protests in its neigh-
bourhood, in particular the Twitter revolution in Moldova and the Jasmine
revolution in Tunisia. She has conducted extensive fieldwork in both coun-
tries and has been a visiting scholar at the London School of Economics.
Richard T. Griffiths graduated in economic history from Swansea University
and obtained his doctorate from Cambridge University. He held the chair of
Economic and Social History at the Free University, Amsterdam, before
being appointed Professor of Contemporary History at the European Univer-
sity Institute, Florence. In 1995 he was appointed Professor of Economic and
Social History at Leiden University and in 2013, he became the first Professor
of International Studies at the same university. He has published widely in the
field of nineteenth- and twentieth-century economic history and the history of
European integration. His book, ‘Thank you M. Monnet’: Essays on the His-
tory of European Integration (Leiden University Press), appeared in 2013
Auður H. Ingólfsdóttir is an Assistant Professor at Bifröst University, Iceland,
teaching courses in the BA Programme in Philosophy, Politics and Eco-
nomics (PPE). She holds a BA degree in international studies from the Uni-
versity of Washington (Seattle), a postgraduate diploma in professional
journalism from the University of Iceland, and a Masters degree in inter-
national relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University (Boston). She has worked as a project manager for the University
of Iceland, as a special advisor in the Ministry for the Environment, and as a
private consultant on environmental policy. During the period 2006–2008 she
worked in Sri Lanka and in the Balkans for the Icelandic Crisis Response
Unit. Her main fields of interest within international relations are the environ-
ment and sustainable development, gender and security studies.
Mindaugas Jurkynas is Professor in Regional Studies at Vytautas Magnus
University in Kaunas and part-time Professor at Mykolas Romeris Univer-
sity in Vilnius, Lithuania, specializing in small state identity, patterns of
cooperation and conflict in Northern Europe and the transformation of new
democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. In his former career he served
as the Lithuanian Prime Minister’s advisor on foreign policy and national
Contributors xvii
security in 2006–2008 and worked at Vilnius University in 1998–2013.
Between December 2011 and January 2013, he launched and was editor-in-
chief of the first issue of the Baltic Journal of Political Science, and was
also head of the Northern European Study Centre at Vilnius University.
Since 2013 February, he has served as associate editor of the International
Journal of Area Studies at Vytautas Magnus University. Mindaugas Jurky-
nas has recently published on the issues of Lithuania’s democratization,
Lithuanian–Russian relations, the Europeanization of Lithuania and the
regional identity of the Baltic States in the periodicals Electoral Studies and
Journal of Baltic Studies, and in co-edited volumes published by Routledge,
Palgrave and Edward Elgar.
Jean-Marc Rickli is Assistant Professor at the Institute of International and
Civil Security at Khalifa University. He holds a PhD in international relations
from Oxford University, where he was a Berrow scholar, and has taught in
more than ten countries in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
His areas of expertise are small states’ security, risk analysis, and non-
traditional security issues. He has published several book chapters and articles
on small states’ security in Europe and in the Gulf, and a book titled Air
Power, Coercion and Crisis Management: The Use of Air Power in the Bal-
kans during the 1990s (Verlag 2009).
Senada Šelo Šabić is a Research Associate at the Institute for Development and
International Relations (IRMO) in Zagreb. Her research interests focus on
Croatian foreign policy, politics and relations among states in South-Eastern
Europe, EU enlargement, development assistance and migration. She holds a
PhD in political science from the European University Institute in Florence and
has two Masters degrees – in international relations and in peace studies – from
the University of Zagreb and the University of Notre Dame, USA, respectively.
She is editor-in-chief of the Croatian International Relations Review and is the
external teacher at the Faculty of Political Science, University of Zagreb. She
has authored a monograph on State Building under Foreign Supervision: Inter-
vention in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1996–2003 (Austrian Federal Ministry of
Defence 2005) as well as book chapters and articles.
Višnja Samardžija obtained her PhD at the Faculty of Economics, University
of Zagreb. She is Head of the Department for European Integration in the
Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO) Zagreb. She
served as Assistant Minister in the Ministry for European Integration of
Croatia (2000–2004) and participated in working groups on Croatia’s negoti-
ations for EU membership. She lectures in postgraduate and doctoral Euro-
pean studies programmes at the universities of Zagreb and Osijek. She has
been a member of the Board of TEPSA (the Trans-European Policy Studies
Association), in Brussels, since 2010. She has coordinated a number of inter-
national projects and conferences, published articles in journals, books and
proceedings in Croatia and abroad and edited the IRMO Europe book series,
xviii Contributors
launched in 1994. Her area of interest includes EU enlargement, EU policy
towards South-Eastern Europe, regional cooperation, civil security, Europe
2020, and communication with citizens.
Timothy M. Shaw is Director of the PhD programme in Global Governance and
Human Security at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. He previously
directed graduate programmes in Commonwealth studies at the University of
London, and in international relations at the University of the West Indies,
after teaching for three decades at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. He
has just co-edited Comparative Regionalism for Development in the 21st Cen-
tury: Insights from the Global South (Ashgate 2013); while his co-edited col-
lection with Andrew Cooper on The Diplomacies of Small States: between
Vulnerability and Resilience (Palgrave 2009) was published in a revised
paperback edition in late 2012. Dr Shaw continues to edit an IPE book series
for Palgrave Macmillan and Ashgate. He is a Visiting Professor at Aalborg,
Mbarara, and Stellenbosch Universities.
Archie W. Simpson is a founding member of the Centre for Small State Stud-
ies, University of Iceland and has been a Teaching Fellow at the University of
Aberdeen and the University of St Andrews, and a Teaching Assistant at the
University of Stirling. His interests include small states, European politics,
British politics and international security. He is currently writing his first
book, Small States in International Politics, to be published by Routledge.
Ian Taylor is Professor in International Relations and African Politics at St
Andrews, and also holds a professorial chair in the School of International
Studies at China’s Renmin University. Further posts are Professor Extra-
ordinary in Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa;
Honorary Professor at the Institute of African Studies, China; and Visiting
Scholar at Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Uganda. Focusing
largely on sub-Saharan Africa, he has authored seven academic books, edited
another eight, and has published well over 100 scholarly articles and chapters
in books.
Baldur Thorhallsson is Professor of Political Science and Jean Monnet Chair in
European Studies at the Faculty of Political Science at the University of Ice-
land. He holds a PhD (1999) and MA (1994) in Political Science from the
University of Essex in England. His research focus is primarily on small state
studies, European integration and Iceland’s domestic and foreign policy. He
has published extensively in international journals. He has contributed to sev-
eral academic books and written two books on small states in Europe: Iceland
and European Integration: On the Edge (Routledge 2004) and The Role of
Small States in the European Union (Routledge 2006). In 2002, Baldur estab-
lished a Centre for Small State Studies at the University of Iceland in associ-
ation with colleagues around the globe and re-established the Icelandic
Institute of International Affairs. He was Chair of the Board of the IIA/CSSS
until 2011 and is currently a Board member.
Contributors xix
Anders Wivel is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science,
University of Copenhagen. His current research focuses on small state foreign
policy and the realist perspective on international relations. He has published
on these topics in a number of international journals, including, for example,
Journal of Common Market Studies, Cooperation and Conflict, Security
Dialogue, Journal of European Integration and Cambridge Review of Inter-
national Affairs. His most recent books are Explaining Foreign Policy:
International Diplomacy and the Russo-Georgian War (Lynne Rienner 2012,
co-author Hans Mouritzen) and Denmark and the European Union (Routledge
2013, co-editor Lee Miles).
Preface
The study of security and the study of small states have always been closely
related. Twentieth-century scholars were puzzled as to how and why small states
survived in an anarchic international system dominated by great power politics.
More recently, a number of analysts have explored the behaviour and influence
of small states in an increasingly institutionalized security environment that
presents a more diverse range of security challenges to individuals, states and
societies. This volume explores small state security conceptually, theoretically
and empirically. It seeks to make an original and accessible contribution to our
understanding by unpacking the most important challenges to small state
security; identifying the central hypotheses emerging from the literature; and
discussing the importance and applicability of these hypotheses inside and
outside the European context for which they were typically constructed.
The study of small states is growing in popularity and sophistication around
the world, just as the numbers of such states have multiplied since the Cold War.
In consequence the number of academic publications and university courses on
small states has also increased over the past two decades. In Europe, in par-
ticular, there has been a growing interest in the challenges and opportunities of
small states in an increasingly globalized world. Since 2003, the Centre for
Small State Studies (CSSS) at the University of Iceland (UI) in Reykjavik has
held an annual two-week Summer School on Small States, with ERASMUS
funding and with help from a network currently of 17 partners (see http://ams.hi.
is/node/19). In 2009–2011, security for such states was the overarching topic of
the event, and it still features strongly within the 2012–2014 programme focus-
ing on ‘Small States, Integration and Globalization’. The co-editors of this
volume have worked together since the Centre’s earliest days, with Professor
Baldur Thorhallsson and Director Pia Hansson at UI, to help develop and teach
at the School; and the main inspiration for this volume was to bring into print –
for wider accessibility – the materials and deeper analysis developed for the
purpose. Most of the chapters were contributed, accordingly, by regular Summer
School lecturers and partners of the CSSS: a few more have been commissioned
from other qualified experts for the sake of coverage and balance.
We would like to thank all concerned at CSSS, including the Summer School
students who have been a permanent source of challenge and inspiration, and all
Preface xxi
who have played a part in preparing, reviewing, designing and producing this
volume. In particular, we would like to thank the contributors to this volume for
their professionalism, enthusiasm and willingness to engage in this project. We
are grateful to the editor of Copenhagen Political Studies Press, Professor Mikkel
Vedby Rasmussen, for a grant allowing for assistance in the final stages of the
editing process and to Vera Knutsdóttir for competently providing that assist-
ance. Last but not least, we thank Heidi Bagtazo, Alexander Quayle, Andrew
Taylor and their team at Routledge for their support and assistance throughout
the editorial process.
We trust that the results will be of help and profit to those engaged in
research, teaching and learning on small states, but also to all policy-makers and
actors – officials, businesspeople, civil society groups and media – who are
involved in managing such states, or who deal with them as partners and
neighbours.
Clive Archer
Alyson J.K. Bailes
Anders Wivel
(November 2013)
Acronyms and abbreviations
AA Association Agreement
ACCP Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police
ACS Association of Caribbean States
AEI Alliance for European Integration (Moldova)
AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States
APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
ARF ASEAN Regional Forum
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASEM Asia-Europe Meetings
AU African Union
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BDC Botswana Development Corporation Limited
BDP Botswana Democratic Party
BEDIA Botswana Export Development and Investment Authority
BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina
BRIC(s) Brazil, Russia, India, China
CAJO Caribbean Association of Judicial Officers
CANARI Caribbean Natural Resources Institute
CAP Common Agricultural Policy (EU)
CARICOM Caribbean Community
CARICOM- CARICOM Implementation Agency for Crime and Security
IMPACS
CARIFORUM Caribbean Forum
CCCC Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre
CDCC Caribbean Cooperation and Development Committee
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy (EU)
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
CLICO Colonial Life Insurance Company
CMS Constant Market Share
CoE Council of Europe
COP Conference of the Parties
CPDC Caribbean Development Policy Centre
CRIES Coordinadora Regional de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales
Acronyms and abbreviations xxiii
CSA Caribbean Studies Association
CSDP Common Security and Defence Policy (EU)
CIS Commonwealth of Independent States
CSME Caribbean Single Market and Economy
CSTO Collective Security Treaty Organization
DCAF Geneva Centre for Democratic Control of Armed Forces
DCFTA Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement
DEMA Danish Emergency Management Agency
DPPI SEE Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South
Eastern Europe
EC European Commission
ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
EEA European Economic Area
EFTA European Free Trade Association
ENP European Neighbourhood Policy (EU)
EPA Economic Partnership Agreement
E-PINE Enhanced Partnership in Northern Europe
ESDP European Security and Defence Policy (EU)
EU European Union
EUROPOL EU Serious and Organized Crime Threat Assessment
SOCTA
EU-R-PSC European Union-Russia Political Security Committee
EUSR European Union’s Special Representative
EVI Economic Vulnerability Index
EVIAR Economic Vulnerability Index Augmented by Resilience
FAP Financial Assistance Programme
FATF Financial Action Task Force (OECD)
FDI Foreign Direct Investment
FOSS Forum of Small States
FRY Former Republic of Yugoslavia
FYROM Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIUK gap Greenland, Iceland, UK gap
GPS Global Positioning System
GR:EEN Global Re-ordering: Evolution through European Networks
GUAM Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova Organization for
Democracy and Economic Development
HDI Human Development Index
HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome
HLAD High-Level Accession Dialogue (EU and FYROM)
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
ICBL International Campaign to Ban Landmines
ICRU Icelandic Crisis Response Unit
ICT Information and communications technology
xxiv Acronyms and abbreviations
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IEA International Energy Agency
IFI International Financial Institution
IMF International Monetary Fund
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISAF International Security Assistance Force (Afghanistan)
KFOR Kosovo Force (NATO-led)
LAC Latin America and the Caribbean
LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka)
MAP Membership Action Plan (NATO)
MDC Most Developed Countries
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MERCOSUR Southern Common Market
MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (Botswana)
MIST Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, Turkey
MSB Civil Contingencies Agency (Sweden)
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NBC Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (weapons)
NDP National Development Plan
NETRIS Network of Regional Integration Studies
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NORDAC Nordic Armaments Co-operation
NORDCAPS Nordic Coordinated Arrangement for Military Peace Support
NORDEFCO Nordic Defence Cooperation
NORDSUP Nordic Support Structure
NOST National Operative Staff (Denmark)
NTS Non-traditional security
OAS Organization of American States
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECS Organization of Eastern Caribbean States
OIC Organization of Islamic Cooperation
OPEC Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
PAP People’s Action Party (Singapore)
PCC SEE Police Cooperation Convention for South East Europe
PfP Partnership for Peace (NATO)
PIIGS Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
RACVIAC South East European Centre for Security Cooperation
RAI Regional Anti-corruption Initiative
RBC Royal Bank of Canada
RCC Regional Cooperation Council (Western Balkans)
Acronyms and abbreviations xxv
RECOM Regional Commission (on war crimes and other serious human
rights violations, Former Yugoslavia)
REVI Revised Economic Vulnerability Index
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SADC Southern African Development Community
SAP Stabilization and Association Process (EU)
SAP Structural Adjustment Programme
SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization
SEE South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme
SEECIC South East European Counter Intelligence Chiefs Forum
SEECP South East European Cooperation Process
SEEMIC South East European Military Intelligence Chiefs Conference
SEENSA South East European National Security Authorities
SEPCA South East European Police Chiefs Association
SFOR Stabilization Force (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
TcFSSR Transcaucasian Federated Soviet Socialist Republic
TIEA Tax Information Exchange Agreements
TMR Transnistrian Moldovan Republic
TOC Transnational Organized Crime
UN United Nations
UNCED United Nations Conference on the Environment and
Development
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNMIK United Nations Interim Administrative Mission in Kosovo
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
UNU-CRIS United Nations University’s Comparative Regional Integration
Studies
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
VAT Value Added Tax
WB Western Balkans
WIDER World Institute for Development Economics Research
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
WTO World Trade Organization
ZAVKO Transcaucasian Military District (Russia)
This page intentionally left blank
Part I
Small state security
revisited
History, concepts, theory
This page intentionally left blank
1 Setting the scene
Small states and international security
Anders Wivel, Alyson J.K. Bailes and Clive Archer
Introduction
Small states have traditionally played a marginal role in the construction and
maintenance of international security orders. Accepting the dictum formulated
by Thucydides in the fifth century BC, that ‘the strong do what they have the
power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’ (Thucydides [1954]
1972: 302), small states have tended to pursue pragmatic and reactive security
policies adapting to the interests of nearby great powers and aiming primarily to
ensure their own survival. As noted by Browning:
[i]n the international relations literature and in world politics size has gener-
ally been connected to capability and influence. Whilst being big is corre-
lated with power, being small has been viewed as a handicap to state action,
and even state survival.
(Browning 2006: 669)
This was true even as international affairs began to institutionalize. In the nine-
teenth century, the Congress of Vienna recognized the special role of the United
Kingdom, Prussia, Austria, France and Russia, and for almost a century the great
powers set the rules of the game by meeting ‘in concert on a regular basis in order
to discuss questions of concern, and to draw up agreements and treaties’ (Neumann
and Gstöhl 2006: 5). Small states were those states that were not great powers, i.e.
the states left to obey the rules of the game, because they were too weak to be
taken seriously when the rules were negotiated. In the first half of the twentieth
century, conditions seemed to worsen for small states as the development of new
weapons technology widened the gap between them and the great powers. As
noted by Annette Baker Fox in her classic study of the power of small states:
[d]uring World War II it was widely asserted that the day of the small power
was over. Not only could such a state have no security under modern con-
ditions of war; it could have no future in the peace that presumably one day
would follow.
(Fox 2006 [1959]: 39)
4 A. Wivel et al.
Superpower rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union following the end
of the war simultaneously intensified and ameliorated the security predica-
ment of small states. On the one hand, the institutions of international society
were strengthened. On a global scale, the establishment and subsequent devel-
opment of the United Nations served as an important vehicle for decoloniza-
tion (supported by both superpowers), which helped to create a large number
of new small states. Subsequently the UN served as a platform for small states
voicing their concerns over international developments and cooperating on
promoting their values and interests. On a regional scale, a proliferation of
new regional trade agreements and organizations, most notably the precursors
to the European Union, helped small states to achieve some of the economies
of scale that had traditionally been the privilege of great powers. On the other
hand, a world with two superpowers of continental size and global reach was
also a world of even greater power disparity than had been the case before the
war, with a sharp delineation between the security- (and insecurity-)produc-
ing superpowers and small state security consumers unable to defend their
own territory against external (and sometimes internal) threats.
A transformed geopolitical environment after the Cold War, 9/11 and the
Iraq war have fundamentally altered the security challenges of small states in
Europe. Most importantly, the end of the Cold War reduced the traditional
military threat to most European small states significantly. In much of Europe
– at least – small states need not fear military invasion for the foreseeable
future. This has widened the foreign policy room of manoeuvre considerably
for these small states, as they need no longer fear that policies provoking or
irritating the strong will lead to military subjugation or extinction. In addi-
tion, from the 1990s onwards, intensified globalization and increased interde-
pendence reduced the importance of traditional military instruments in a way
that highlighted both the diplomatic and institutional competencies of small
states, and their possible non-state (business, intellectual, environmental)
assets.
However, new security challenges soon emerged. The Gulf War of
1990–1991 and the struggle over former Yugoslavia created new demands for
active conflict management, and small states were expected to contribute to their
solution even if their immediate security interests were not under threat. The
repercussions of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on
September 11, 2001, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, emphasized the
global aspect of small state security. As the European experience has illustrated,
this does not necessarily mean the end of great power politics. The gradual
development of the EU as a security actor, and the frequent use of informal big
member state consultations in EU security policy making, illustrates that Euro-
peanization entails challenges as well as opportunities (Wivel 2005). At the same
time economic, societal and environmental security issues present all states with
a new set of challenges including financial crisis, increased competition over
markets, migration, terrorism and global warming.
Small states and international security 5
The aim of the book
The aim of this book is to conceptualize, map and explain the security challenges
of small states today. We specifically aim both to identify the challenges and the
opportunities of small states and to discuss the costs and benefits of the different
security strategies followed by small states inside and outside Europe. Through-
out the history of international security, small states’ relative lack of power has
given them less influence over international events and a smaller margin of time
and error (Jervis 1978: 172–173). As permanent security consumers they have
had little to offer the great powers and therefore, also, a limited room for man-
oeuvre when pursuing strategic goals beyond security and survival. As the stra-
tegic environment of small states is changing, so are their opportunities and
incentives to engage actively in the creation and maintenance of security orders.
Even though the literature on small state security has been growing rapidly
since the end of the Cold War, there have been few attempts to go beyond single
country studies and provide a comprehensive overview of the general pattern of
challenges, opportunities and strategies facing small states in the current security
order. Now, as in the past, the study of small states is plagued by a lack of cumu-
lative insights and coherent debate. This book aspires to fill this void by taking
three steps towards a more generally applicable understanding of small state
security. First, we discuss how the transformation of small state security necessi-
tates the development and application of new security concepts, and extends the
range of possible solutions. Second, we analyse a number of European cases in
order to describe and explain the security predicament of small European states
today and how they respond. Third, we explore examples of small state security
in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean to see how they compare or contrast with the
European experience. All this helps to produce comparative insights, drawn from
the conceptual discussions and empirical analyses, and reflected in the chapters
of Part III.
We do not seek to prove a certain theoretical school – realist, liberal or con-
structivist – right or wrong. Our research strategy is to start from a shared defini-
tion of small states, to focus on the security challenges and opportunities of
small states today and in the recent past, and to structure the analyses within
each part of the book with a set of questions to be answered by each chapter
within that part. Thus, our aim is not to construct and test a grand theory of small
states, but to offer a structured and focused analysis of small state security today.
We also acknowledge that different theories may shed light in different places,
and that variations in historical, geopolitical and institutional contexts will affect
the applicability of general theories to small state security over time and space.
The lessons
As stressed above, the study of small states as we seek to use it is not a reduc-
tionist theory. It may be approached through and combined with any of the
dominant theories of International Relations (IR), from realism through to social
constructivism and beyond. It is at its best, however, when it is used to test such
theories through the exploration of outlying cases, and to challenge any over-
monolithic view of either statehood or the international system generally.
Preparing this volume has been an exercise both in enriching and in challeng-
ing the ‘small state’ concept itself. First and most obviously, when talking about
small states and security, the book’s different sections show the complex nature
of – and the need for a critical approach to – both terms involved. Small states
themselves are just as diverse as any other constructed category in international
society. They overlap variously with other categories, such as developing and
developed; ‘weak states’ (in the twenty-first century sense); and well-governed
states – modern and post-modern. Where they stand along these three axes – plus
the axis of economic vulnerability, as discussed in Griffiths’ chapter – provides
perhaps the best starting-point for assessing the character and manageability of
their security challenges.
Merely being small, or even very small, if a state enjoys external and internal
peace and wise governance, may be a factor that reduces rather than multiplies
security headaches. It eliminates the need to make a pretence of self-sufficient
defence or even to create military forces at all. It dampens expectations of a
significant outgoing contribution to global goods like peacekeeping and, rather,
creates a supposition of importing help in natural and accidental emergencies.
Such a state is arguably less ‘state-like’ than others in traditional IR terms, and
the micro-states covered in Chapter 10 are the most extreme and clear examples.
Add a modicum of flexibility and inventiveness to the mix, however, and small
actors may emerge – as shown by examples in Chapter 14 – as remarkably well-
attuned to the rules of survival both in today’s and tomorrow’s increasingly glo-
balized world.
When things go wrong in security terms, then like Tolstoy’s unhappy fam-
ilies, there are almost as many variants of trouble as there are small states them-
selves. Parts II and III of this book bear out the contention in Part I that newer,
broader definitions of security, including non-state threats and economic and
functional dimensions, can better capture the full spectrum of small state chal-
lenges than the post-World War II realist discourse, with its purely military and
Small states and international security 19
territorial focus. To be sure, geopolitical location continues to be of central
importance to small state security, but the case-studies in this volume illustrate
how many small states inside and outside Europe have a considerable action
space when deciding how to confront the challenges spurred by location and
power politics. Accordingly, within the four-way framework proposed in
Chapter 2, the small states covered in the geographical chapters emerge with
very diverse combinations of security priorities. Only a minority of those dis-
cussed, such as the Western Balkan states and Sri Lanka, have the consequences
of recent internal armed conflict near the top of their agendas, and this is in line
with the slowly decreasing frequency of such conflicts (or at least ‘major’ ones)
worldwide.6 A larger number, from the Baltic States through to Singapore, are
coping with prominent or residual threats from bigger neighbours of dubious
intent. Just about all face economic challenges that call for constant effort and
inventiveness to stay afloat, whether at a higher or lower level of wealth and
development. All, to some degree, are open to issues of security of supply, trans-
national human challenges like crime, and natural ones like pollution and climate
change, and various kinds of civil emergencies. A final variant in the mix is the
perception, whether justified or not, of ‘enemies within’, which may be triggered
either by long-standing ethnic divisions, or by concern over being swamped and
culturally diluted by immigration.
To be of any use, this book’s analysis cannot stop at documenting such issues
but needs to consider how small states can best grapple with them. It is here that
the ‘relational’ approach to small state identity, as proposed earlier in this intro-
ductory chapter, really proves its worth. Any small state in a region populated
mainly by states of similar and medium size (such as Europe, the Caribbean or
the Pacific) has different options from one whose only external relations – both
with potential problem states and protectors – are severely asymmetrical.
Further, both similarity and asymmetry vis-à-vis neighbours can make their mark
on national predicaments at several different levels of absolute size. The
common factors in the most problematic cases are quintessentially relational,
and often include subjective or constructed elements: lack of room for man-
oeuvre, de facto compromised sovereignty, but also a sense of smallness as help-
lessness and victimhood that, at worst, may lead the small actor itself into bad
choices. Hard though some may find it to accept, Chapter 9, on Georgia and
Moldova, correctly notes Georgia’s own contribution to the circumstances that
triggered war with Russia in 2008. Critical observers might also see instances of
counter-productive, provocative behaviour in the recent story of the Baltic
States. Few could claim that all the small Western Balkan states, or Sri Lanka,
are free of all responsibility for their own sufferings.
This only takes us as far, however, as concluding that small states in asym-
metric situations may or may not find improved solutions by means that include
their own wisdom and restraint. To explain more fully the differences reflected
in this volume’s chapters, another factor should be brought into the picture: the
presence, absence and relative effectiveness of multilateral regional or sub-
regional organizations. Chapter 2 proposes the hypothesis that small states
20 A. Wivel et al.
should have a better chance of moderating both their hard and soft security prob-
lems if one or more functional groupings of this kind are present. Such a thesis
is in line with recent directions in small state studies that explore the generic
relevance of institutions as ‘shelters’– capable of supplementing or even sup-
planting the more traditional state–protector relationship (e.g. Bailes and Thorh-
allsson 2013). How far do the case-studies in Parts II and III of this volume bear
this theory out?
The European cases covered in Part II actually fit it well. The Nordic and
Baltic nations are all living with an asymmetric, historically threatening and still
ambiguous neighbour, namely Russia. All have, however, gained high or very
high levels of wellbeing and an almost complete immunity (by now) from
military or political domination, with no crushing societal or economic costs in
terms of their own militarization. First and foremost, this is thanks to their region
being covered for hard security purposes by NATO (and by the US through
NATO), and for economic and functional security purposes by the EU. However,
the way that the two sets of states have worked together among themselves has
also been an important and arguably essential part of the mix. By establishing
strong and ostensibly de-securitized, inter-Nordic ties during the Cold War, the
Nordic states have built a kind of security community that surmounts persistent
divisions in institutional status and takes aggression or damaging competition
among themselves out of the equation. More recently, overt Nordic security and
defence cooperation has begun to address sub-regional challenges (including
Arctic ones) in an efficient mode of subsidiarity and has enhanced relative
Nordic standing in the European policy game. The Baltic States would not have
gained EU and NATO entry so fast, nor have been able to exploit these institu-
tions’ cover so well, had they not teamed up for local security purposes and also
drawn in Nordic advice and aid at crucial stages. These countries have added to
their security by enshrining their relations with Russia in regional multilateral
frameworks – the Barents Euro-Arctic Council and the Council for Baltic Sea
States – that allow an inclusive web of linkages to be established between all
neighbouring states and their societies.
The prospects of the Western Balkan states depend most obviously on their
integration into NATO and the EU, the only extant frameworks powerful enough
to overcome these states’ recent mutual enmity and still-existing internal ethnic
divisions. Sub-regional processes in this part of Europe were initially – and
understandably in post-war conditions – designed from outside.7 However, if one
goes through the motions long enough, even in imposed behaviours, they may
start to have a real transformative effect. Chapter 8 interestingly suggests that
not only have key local actors understood the need to ‘show willing’ in their
mutual relations for pragmatic purposes of accession strategy (hence the recent
Serbia-Kosovo agreement), but that cross-border and wider transnational flows
in the region are beginning to take positive effect both in concrete economic and
in attitudinal terms.
The situation of Moldova and Georgia makes an instructive contrast. Their
predicament can be put down first and foremost to ‘location, location, location’,
Small states and international security 21
with Moldova being on the borderline of the EU’s and NATO’s present strategic
reach and Georgia fatally beyond it. The Russia that has grudgingly accepted the
Baltic States’ full independence and Western integration is the same nation that
has managed to prise away parts of Moldovan and Georgian territory, and to
restrict (in practice) these states’ strategic options. The presence or absence of
Western – including US – ability and will to challenge Russia’s local dominance
is the most obvious variable in the two cases: but it is not the only one. The com-
plete failure of the independent states emerging from the Western part of the
former Soviet Union to create sub-regional groupings with real clout and mutual
loyalty8 is also important, especially when contrasted with Nordic, Baltic or non-
European (to be covered shortly) examples. It bears out the relativistic slant of
the relational hypothesis by showing that a small state may be effectively alone
in handling a dominant neighbour, even when it has other neighbours of a similar
smallness. Finally, and also to be discussed further in Chapter 9, Moldova’s and
Georgia’s own weaknesses of governance and security management have aggra-
vated their exposure to hostile interference, just as they have impeded their pro-
gress towards Western integrated standards.
It may be tempting to dismiss this analysis as Euro-centric. In fact, the chapters
in Part III suggest that factoring in the element of regional and sub-regional organ-
ization does have a wider explanatory value, so long as variations in the local
concept of statehood – and hence of inter-state relations – are taken into account.
In Southeast Asia, for example, older traditions separate the strength and influence
of states from their objective size, while modern approaches to multilateral cooper-
ation eschew the internally intrusive imposition of standards that is central to EU-
style integration. Yet the availability of the sub-regional ASEAN network to a
small actor like Singapore, and larger frames like the ASEAN Regional Forum
(ARF), where balancing tactics can be essayed towards China, has played a real
part in minimizing and containing physical conflicts in the neighbourhood and in
creating conditions for non-zero-sum regional growth. Chapter 13, on the Carib-
bean, explores in detail how the transnational and post-modern nature of most
security challenges for that cluster of small states has drawn solutions based on
regional and global network-building in its wake. This chapter, together with
Chapter 14, rightly reminds us that just as the new security challenges are often of
non-state origin, so the equivalent of regional institution-building in the business,
NGO and civil society spheres can also be an important part of solutions – and one
where notions of small state weakness under realist analysis become less and less
relevant. To the extent that such approaches succeed, they reduce the need and
scope for outside powers’ interference and divide-and-rule attempts, and thus rein-
force the need to rethink traditional realist logic if we are to understand the security
challenges and opportunities of small states.
What seems to need more study, and is just starting to be more deeply probed
in Europe, is the price that small states must pay for the multiple security bene-
fits of institutionalization. Aside from direct expenses and the impact of intrusive
standardization, serious burdens may be involved in shouldering the security
agendas of other, larger and/or more exposed integration partners, and in
22 A. Wivel et al.
contributing to collective institutional interventions outside the home area. The
normative hazard of having to espouse partners’ self-interested and possibly
aggressive policies is not wholly irrelevant here, though the risks are probably
less than when bandwaggoning with a single large protector, who may make
more arbitrary and extreme choices than an institution working by consensus.
Further, the intrusive regulatory impact of the more deep-reaching multilateral
structures may start to undermine national identity itself, in a way that traditional
empires often markedly failed to do. It would be good to see more work done on
investigating such benefit–cost equations of regionalization in non-European
cases, including Eurasian examples like the Russian-led groupings and the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Other areas not covered in this book, but
where interesting variations might be discovered, are the sub-regions of Africa,
Central America, and the cluster of small Arab states in the Gulf.
This discussion may appropriately end where Chapter 2 also ends: by noting the
importance of internal security governance. No state, however small, is entirely
without free will in this matter. The smallest states can be just as divided, corrupt,
incoherent and inconsistent in forming and executing security strategies as any
large state; they may even fall more readily into such traps when they discount the
need for formal structures. Yet good internal governance, including intra-
governmental and cross-sectoral coordination and a minimum of democratic
control, makes a real difference to success in any environment and under any ana-
lytical framework. Realistically, this implies maximizing national strength and
leaving no cracks for hostile forces to exploit (a point interestingly explored in
Chapter 12). In a more post-modern environment, where institutional shelters are
available, demonstrating good governance and ‘interoperable’ practices in this as
well as other spheres can make all the difference in the feasibility and speed of
integration, while at the same creating new challenges in the form of ‘goodwill
competition’ among small states vying for influence over institutional inclusion
and the attention of the great powers (Mouritzen and Wivel 2005b: 34–36).
As the Chapter 4, on ‘societal’ security will stress, this reasoning does not
imply that any single governance model or terminology – least of all a Euro-
centric one – should be imposed on all small states. It does mean that all of them
would do well to ask questions about their internal as well as external practices,
in the light of the analysis and empirical case-studies offered by this book.
Notes
1 ‘Should small states be categorized along geographic, demographic or economic lines,
or do institutions, resources, and power hold the key?’ ask Smith et al. in a discussion
of small states (Smith et al. 2005). Students of International Relations are unlikely to
deliver a uniform answer to this question, or even to agree on whether the question is
correctly posed for an understanding of the nature and challenges of small states.
2 Important contributions to the realist perspective on international relations include, for
example, Morgenthau (1948), Waltz (1979) and more recently Mearsheimer (2001).
For discussions on the contemporary state of realism, see Booth (2011) and Lobell et
al. (2009).
Small states and international security 23
3 ‘Micro-states’ in Europe are commonly defined to include Andorra, Liechtenstein,
Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City. See Chapter 10 in this volume.
4 Following Väyrynen, Archer and Nugent suggest that we combine objective factors
such as ‘size of diplomatic corps’ and ‘size of GDP’ with subjective factors such as
‘foreign governments’ ’ view of a state’s size and capability’ and ‘domestic govern-
ments’ ’ view of its own state’s size and capability’ (Archer and Nugent 2002: 2–3).
5 See also the discussions by Knudsen (1996: 5) and Gärtner (1993: 303), which pre-
ceded the current development of the small state concept but introduced a similar crit-
ical approach to the power possession definition.
6 According to SIPRI (the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), state-to-
state conflicts in 2002–2011 averaged 33 per year compared with 53 in 1992. Cases of
‘one-sided violence’ halved in 2002–2011, while non-state conflicts initially halved
during that period but then returned to 38 per year (Themnér and Wallensteen 2013:
52–57).
7 While the Western Balkans were covered by an earlier and larger Central European
Initiative, the first sub-region-specific framework – the Southeast European Coopera-
tion Initiative – was devised in 1996 under the guidance of the then Senior Director for
Eastern Europe in the United States National Security Council, Richard Schifter. Its
modern successor, the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC), is covered in Chapter 8
of this volume.
8 The problem has two levels. First, the states of the region are split as to their basic
strategic orientation: towards cooperation with Russia (Belarus, Armenia), or
towards the West and Turkey (Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan), with Ukraine often
oscillating in between. Second, both the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan,
Moldova Organization for Democracy and Economic Development) grouping aimed
at balancing Russia, and the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO), have severe institutional weaknesses including a failure to overcome the
basic bilateral dynamic in their respective members’ relations with Moscow (Bailes
et al. 2007).
Bibliography
Amstrup, N. (1976) ‘The Perennial Problem of Small States: A Survey of Research
Efforts’, Cooperation and Conflict, 11(3): 163–182.
Anckar, D. (2004) ‘Regime Choices in Microstates: The Cultural Constraint’, Common-
wealth and Comparative Politics, 42(2): 206–223.
Antola, E and Lehtimäki, M. (2001) Small States in the EU, Turku: Jean Monnet Centre
of Excellence.
Archer, C. and Nugent, N. (2002) ‘Introduction: Small States and the European Union’,
Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 11(1): 1–10.
Bailes, A.J.K., Baranovsky, V. and Dunay, P. (2007) ‘Regional security cooperation in
the former Soviet area’, in SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Armaments, Disarmament and Inter-
national Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailes, A.J.K. and Thorhallsson, B. (2013) ‘Instrumentalizing the European Union in
Small State Strategies’, Journal of European Integration, 35(2): 99–115.
Booth, K. (ed.) (2011) Realism and World Politics, London: Routledge.
Browning, C. (2006) ‘Small, Smart and Salient? Rethinking Identity in the Small States
Literature’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 19(4): 669–684.
Christmas-Møller, W. (1983) ‘Some Thoughts on the Scientific Applicability of the Small
State Concept: A Research History and a Discussion’ in Otmar Höll (ed.) Small States
in Europe and Dependence, Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, pp. 35–53.
24 A. Wivel et al.
Fox, A. Baker (2006 [1959]) ‘The Power of Small States: Diplomacy in World War II’,
in Ingebritsen, C., Neumann, I., Gstöhl, S. and Beyer, J. (eds) Small States in Inter-
national Relations, Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 39–54.
Gärtner, H. (1993) ‘Small States and Security Integration’, Coexistence, 30: 303–312.
Grøn, C. and Wivel, A. ‘Maximizing Influence in the European Union after the Lisbon
Treaty: From Small State Policy to Smart State Strategy’, Journal of European Inte-
gration, 33(5): 523–539.
Hanf, K. and Soetendorp, B. (1998) ‘Small States and the Europeanisation of Public
Policy’, in Hanf, K. and Soetendorp, B. (eds) Adapting to European Integration: Small
States and the European Union, London and New York: Longman.
Heron, T. (2008) ‘Small States and the Politics of Multilateral Trade Liberalization’, The
Round Table, 97: 243–257.
Hey, J.A.K. (2003) ‘Introducing Small State Foreign Policy’, in Hey, J.A.K. (ed.) Small
States in World Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 1–11.
Jervis, R. (1978) ‘Cooperation under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics, 30(2):
172–173.
Kennedy, P. (1987) The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and
Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, New York: Random House.
Knudsen, O.F. (1996) ‘Analysing Small-State Security: The Role of External Factors’, in
Bauwens, W., Clesse, A. and Knudsen, O.F. (eds) Small States and the Security Chal-
lenge in the New Europe, London: Brassey’s, pp. 3–20.
Knudsen, O.F. (2002) ‘Small States, Latent and Extant: Towards a General Perspective’,
Journal of International Relations and Development, 5(2): 182–198.
Lobell, S., Ripsman, N.M. and Taliaferro, J.W. (2009) Neoclassical Realism, The State,
and Foreign Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W.W. Norton
& Company.
Mohamed, A.N. (2002) The Diplomacy of Micro-states, Discussion Paper in Diplomacy
78, The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
Morgenthau, H. (1948) Politics among Nations, New York: Knopf.
Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (eds) (2005a) ‘Introduction’, in Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A.
(eds) The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration, London: Routledge, pp. 1–11.
Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (eds) (2005b) The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration.
London: Routledge, pp. 15–42.
Neumann, I.B. and Gstöhl, S. (2006) ‘Introduction: Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World?’, in
Ingebritsen, C., Neumann, I., Gstöhl, S. and Beyer, J. (eds) Small States in Inter-
national Relations, Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 3–36.
Panke, D. (2010) Small States in the European Union, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Plischke, E. (1977) Microstates in World Affairs, Washington, DC: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy Research.
Rickli, J.-M. (2008) ‘European Small States’ Military Policies after the Cold War: From
Territorial to Niche Strategies’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3):
307–325.
Rothstein, R. (1968) Alliances and Small Powers, New York: Columbia University Press.
Schweller, R.L. (1998) Deadly Imbalances, New York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, N., Pace, M. and Lee, D. (2005) ‘Size Matters: Small States and International
Studies’, International Studies Perspectives, 6(3): 395–397.
Steinmetz, R. and Wivel, A. (2010) ‘Introduction’, in Steinmetz, R. and Wivel, A. (eds)
Small States in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1–14.
Small states and international security 25
Themnér, L. and Wallensteen, P. (2013) ‘Pattern of Organized Violence, 2002–11’, in
SIPRI Yearbook 2013: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Thorhallsson, B. and Wivel, A. (2006) ‘Small States in the European Union: What Do
We Know and What Would We Like to Know’, Cambridge Review of International
Affairs, 19(4): 651–668.
Thucydides (1972 [1954]) History of the Peloponnesian War, London: Penguin Books.
Toje, A. (2010) The European Union as a Small Power, Hounslow: PalgraveMacmillan.
Väyrynen, R. (1971) ‘On the Definition and Measurement of Small Power Status’, Coop-
eration and Conflict, 6(1): 91–102.
Vital, D. (1967) The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International
Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Warrington, E. (1998) ‘Introduction: Gulliver and Lilliput in a New World Order: The
Impact of External Relations on the Domestic Policies and Institutions of Micro-states’,
Public Administration and Development, 18: 101–105.
Wivel, A. (2005) ‘The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States: Interests, Identity
and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor’, Journal of Common Market
Studies, 43(2): 393–412.
Wohlforth, W.C. (1999) ‘The Stability of a Unipolar World’, International Security,
24(1): 5–41.
2 Small states, survival and strategy
Alyson J.K. Bailes, Jean-Marc Rickli and
Baldur Thorhallsson
Added to all this is a growing tendency (at least in democratic and transitional
states) to challenge the self-justifying, self-regulating tendency of traditional
security establishments.10 When security is understood as protecting not just life
but the quality of life, security concepts and actions must be tested against the
political values that safeguard life’s quality, including equality under the law,
transparency, democratic accountability, respect for all kinds of rights and – not
least – affordability. A good conceptual example is the constitutive act of the
African Union (African Union 2002), which lays out three strongly interdepend-
ent goals of conflict resolution and security building, democracy building and
sustainable development. This may seem little more than an aspirational formula
for many parts of the world; but it finds a practical echo in the resources being
channelled by all main security institutions and aid donors into ‘Security Sector
Reform’ – an approach combining efficiency with law-based democratic
accountability across the whole security field – in post-conflict and transitional
environments.11 At the same time, all viable states, whether large or small, are
increasingly expected to contribute, more or less altruistically, to peace missions
and other forms of assistance for the less fortunate. Together, these trends are
expanding the conventional notion of state performance beyond what used to be
called ‘good security’, to include the expectation of ‘doing good’ in the security
dimension at home and abroad. Inevitably, these standards, set by the suppos-
edly most advanced states and organizations for others to follow, are sometimes
most flagrantly ignored by the most capable players – when it suits them.
Against this background, and drawing on relevant institutional and national
documents, Table 2.1 presents a matrix of security issues hopefully wide enough
to cover all regions featured in this book. It groups hazards by the type of action
involved, on a range from the ‘hardest’ to the ‘softest’, but also in terms of
agency. Thus package ‘A’ covers inter-state and state-targeted actions, including
classic ‘geopolitical’ threats, but also internal conflict. ‘B’ concerns non-state
and asymmetric damage of human origin, largely but not always intentional
(vide migration). In deference to the small-state literature, ‘C’ creates a separate
category for economic and social challenges arising from weakness, malfunction
or miscalculation in ‘normal’ aspects of community life; and finally, ‘D’ com-
bines events and processes of accidental or ‘natural’ origin. The listing within
each column also reflects a gradient of agency, moving from the more
Table 2.1 A possible ‘comprehensive’ security agenda for small states
A. Military,´hard’ security B. Non-state violence (conflict C. Economic security D. Accidents and natural
actors apart) hazards
State attack Terrorism General economic and financial viability, Major deadly accidents,
including problems of underdevelopment including NBC* release
Caught in crossfire Violent/organized crime Security of supply (food, energy, other Infrastructure breakdown
essentials)
Subversion, sabotage Smuggling of strategic goods Severe social weaknesses/divisions (including Pandemics
issues of demography)
Political or economic blackmail, Other ‘asymmetric’ attack, e.g. Natural disasters
forced clientage cyber-attack
Coup from outside Illegal migration, trafficking Environmental degradation,
resource exhaustion
Internal (armed) conflict, Climate change
including top-down violence
Severe civil disorder
Note
* Nuclear, biological or chemical.
32 A.J.K. Bailes et al.
‘traditional’, intentional and state-linked acts down to the more informal or unin-
tentional. It does not aim to quantify probability or seriousness of impact, which
can vary widely anyway within most categories – objectively, and in terms of
nations’ perceptions. This volume’s geographical experts will be invited pre-
cisely to explain how far, and why, these issues do or do not figure in the
security concepts and priorities of each state or region addressed.
Bibliography
Acharya, A., (2011) ‘Human Security’, in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. The Glo-
balization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
African Union (2002) ‘The Constitutive Act’, available online at: www.africa-union.org/
root/au/aboutau/constitutive_act_en.htm (accessed 14 September 2012).
Bailes, A.J.K. (2006) ‘The World of Security and Peace Research in a 40-year Per-
spective’ in SIPRI Yearbook 2006: Armaments, Disarmament and International
Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailes, A.J.K. (2007) ‘Introduction: A World of Risk’ in SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Arma-
ments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailes, A.J.K. (2009) ‘Does a Small State Need a Strategy?’, occasional paper of the
Institute for International Affairs/Centre for the Study of Small States, University of
Iceland, available online at: http:stofnanir.hi.is/ams/sites/files/ams/Bailes_Final_0.pdf
(accessed 13 May 2013).
Bailes, A.J.K. (2011) ‘Instrumentalizing the EU in Small State Strategies: Examples from
Norden’, paper presented at the International Studies Association, Montreal.
Bailes, A.J.K. and Cottey, A. (2006) ‘Regional Security Cooperation in the Early 21st
Century’ in SIPRI Yearbook 2006: Armaments, Disarmament and International
Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailes, A.J.K. and Ragnarsson, J.K. (2011) ‘Iceland and Cyber-threats: Is it More Than
Fear of Fear?’, Stjórnmál og Stjórnsysla (University of Iceland), Summer 2011, pp.
185–202.
Bailes, A.J.K. and Thorhallsson, B. (2012) ‘Instrumentalizing the European Union in
Small State Strategies’, Journal of European Integration, 35(2): 99–115.
Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (2011) The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G. and Kisanga, E.J. (2006) ‘Introduction’, in Briguglio, L.,
Cordina, G. and Kisanga, E.J. (eds) Building the Economic Resilience of Small States,
Malta: Formatek for the Islands and Small States Institute of the University of Malta
and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
44 A.J.K. Bailes et al.
Buzan, B., de Wilde, J. and Wæver, O. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner publishers.
Crocker, Chester A., Fen O. Hampson and Pamela Aall (2011) Rewiring Regional
Security in a Fragmented World, New York: US Institute of Peace.
Cooper, A.F. and Shaw T.M. (2009) (eds) The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vul-
nerability and Resilience, The Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Emmers, R. (2009) ‘Securitization’, in Collins, A. (ed.) Contemporary Security Studies
(2nd edition), London: Oxford University Press.
Giegerich, B. (ed.) (2010) ‘Europe and Global Security’, Adelphi paper 414–415,
London: Institute of International Strategic Studies.
Guéhenno, J.-M. (1995) The End of the Nation-State, Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Handel, M. (1981) Weak States in the International System, London: Frank Cass.
Hansen, A. and Wiharta, S. (2007) ‘The Transition to a Just Order: Establish Local Own-
ership after Conflict, A Policy Report’, Stockholm: Folke Bernadotte Academy
Research Report no. 4.
Ingebritsen, C. (2002) ‘Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics’,
Cooperation and Conflict, 27(1): 11–23.
Katzenstein, P.J. (1984) Corporatism and Change: Austria, Switzerland, and the Politics
of Industry, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, P.J. (1985) Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe,
Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R.O. (1969) ‘Lilleputians’ Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics’,
International Organization, 23(2): 291–310.
Ladrech, R. (2010) Europeanization and National Politics, London: Macmillan.
Lutterbeck, D. (2004) ‘Between Police And Military: The New Security Agenda and the
Rise of Gendarmerie’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39:1: 45–68.
Mouritzen, H. (1997) External Danger and Democracy: Old Nordic Lessons and New
European Challenges, Aldershot and Brookfield: Dartmouth.
Naim, M. (2012). ‘Mafia States: Organized Crime Takes Off ’, Foreign Affairs, May/June
2012.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (2003) Strategy to Address Threats
to Security and Stability in the Twenty-First Century, OECD.
Rickli, J.-M. (2008) ‘European Small States’ Military Policies after the Cold War: From
Territorial to Niche Strategies’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3):
307–325.
Rickli, J.-M. (2010a) ‘Neutrality Inside and Outside the EU: A Comparison of the Aus-
trian and Swiss Security Policies after the Cold War’, in Steinmetz, R., Thorhallsson,
B. and Wivel, A. (eds) Small States in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities, Alder-
shot: Ashgate, pp. 181–198.
Rickli, J.-M. (2010b) The Military Policies of European Neutral and Non-Allied States
after the Cold War, PhD thesis, Oxford: University of Oxford.
Scheuerman, W.E. (2009) Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Schwartz, H. (2011) ‘Iceland’s Financial Iceberg: Why Leveraging up is a Titanic
Mistake without a Reserve Currency’, European Political Science, 10(3): 292–300.
Tranoy, B.S. (2011) ‘Poor Governance in a Very Rich and Advanced (Micro)State:
Reflections from Political Science’, European Political Studies, 10(3): 277–291.
Small states, survival and strategy 45
Thorhallsson, B. (2011) ‘Domestic Buffer versus External Shelter: Viability of Small
States in the New Globalised Economy’, European Political Science, 10(3): 324–336.
Thorhallsson B. and Kirby, P. (2012) ‘Financial Crisis in Iceland and Ireland: Does EU
and Euro Membership Matter?’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 50(5): 801–818.
Vital, D. (1967) The Inequality of States: A Study of Small Powers in International Rela-
tions, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
United Nations (2005) ‘Summit Outcome’, available online at: www.un.org/summit2005/
documents.html (accessed 14 September 2012).
United Nations Development Programme (2004), ‘Human Development Report’, avail-
able online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/ (accessed 14 September
2012).
Walt, S.M. (1987) The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Williams, P. (ed.) (2013) Security Studies: An Introduction (2nd edition), London:
Routledge.
Wivel, A. (2005) ‘The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States: Interests, Identity
and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor’, Journal of Common Market
Studies, 43(2): 393–412
3 Economic security and size
Richard T. Griffiths
Introduction
The concept of economic security has two dimensions – security at the level of
the household or citizen and security at the level of the state. Although the two
levels are obviously linked, since instability at the state level will percolate
through to its citizens, each level has its own distinct literature and the two levels
combined are too large to do justice to within the framework of a single chapter.
For this reason we will focus on the macro-economic dimensions of security.
No state can be completely secure, or should even aspire to be. Isolation and
self-sufficiency are options only available to the few, and states that have chosen
this path – such as the planned economy of the USSR and Communist China
before the reforms – have condemned themselves to wasteful and inefficient
growth strategies. The path of international development is not smooth, and it is
regularly punctuated by local, and sometimes global, setbacks. All states, large
and small, are exposed to such vicissitudes and no state can secure itself com-
pletely against them. The issue addressed in this chapter is whether smaller states
are more exposed, by virtue of their size, to such risks and whether they are more
constrained in their means of redress. Systemic insecurity of this nature can
impact on economies even when conditions seem favourable, since the percep-
tion of insecurity can shorten planning horizons, inhibit investment and dampen
growth perspectives (United Nations 2008: 4–5).
This chapter will start by reviewing the confusion that exists around the defi-
nition of a small state, before adopting the concept of relative size, as suggested
by the editors of this volume. It will then approach the question of economic
security by starting with the issues involved with insecurity. In the past decade
there has been a proliferation of composite indices covering almost all aspects of
economics, the environment and the social sciences, and the question of eco-
nomic vulnerability has not escaped this trend. Vulnerability is not simply a
function of size and therefore, after an examination of these indices – including
concrete examples of the states considered most and least vulnerable – the
chapter will focus on those aspects that may derive from the expectations of
small state literature. Having identified the source of security threats for smaller
economies, we shall turn to a discussion of factors that might mitigate their
Economic security and size 47
effects. This will start with the concept of resilience, or those structural factors
that may facilitate economic management under adverse conditions, before
examining some strategies available for overcoming the threats perceived.
Vulnerability
To determine what is meant by security, we need to know what exactly is meant
by insecurity. This is not to suggest that insecurity is the only paradigm from
which to approach the question of size, nor to insinuate that those structural ele-
ments that we identify as contributing to insecurity can only be resolved by
foreign aid or special concessions (Baldacchino and Bertram 2009: 141–142). It
is simply an attempt to define the potential problems before turning to possible
solutions. First, we should stress that insecurity is not synonymous with risk.
Every development that is not completely predictable is, by definition, risky, but
a risk can always have two outcomes – positive and negative. Insecurity implies
that there is a greater than average chance that, in a given situation, the outcomes
48 R.T. Griffiths
will be negative, and that it will be more than usually difficult to absorb the
effects. Thus insecurity implies a greater than otherwise risk of negative impact
of exogenous developments and a lack of mechanisms for coping with these
external shocks. Most authors opt for the term ‘vulnerability’ to capture this
mixture of elements (Combes and Guillaumont 2002; Seth and Ragab 2012).
For this chapter’s purposes, as already noted, we must confine ourselves to
macro-economic vulnerability and ignore the rich, interesting, and – in another
context – relevant literature on welfare impacts and household survival strategies
(Alwang et al. 2001). Further, we are interested in elements of vulnerability that
are functionally related to the size of a state – for instance, as relative smallness
exacerbates the impact of external shocks or diminishes the capacity to absorb
them. This qualification is important because many elements associated with
economic vulnerability are equally associated with poverty and under-
development. A small state that enjoys or attains more highly developed status
does not cease to be vulnerable, but the nature and degree of that vulnerability
may change. This distinction will also be important as we chart the various
attempts to construct tables of relative vulnerability.
The problems arising directly from size arise partly from the fact that produc-
tion is a function of available resources, whereas consumption is a function of
income levels (Snorrason 2012: 47–74). Thus the first expectation is that the
smaller the state, the more limited is likely to be its range of output. Small states
have supply constraints such as fewer resources (though strictly this is more a
function of area and geographical location than of size), less labour, a smaller
capital base and fewer entrepreneurs. They are also confronted by demand con-
straints, the most important of which is a domestic market too small to achieve
scale economies, and therefore less efficient (Kuznets 1960; Ward 1975; Roth-
schild 1993). But while a small state will not be producing a wide range of prod-
ucts, its consumption patterns will tend to reflect those of other economies with
a similar level of income. Thus the second expectation is that the smaller the size
of a state, the larger will be its propensity to import to meet its domestic con-
sumption and investment needs. This high level of import demand will force
smaller economies into export markets in order to earn the foreign exchange
necessary to meet the cost of imports (Kuznets 1960; Lloyd 1968; Väyrynen
1974; Alesina et al. 1997; Salvatore 1997; Armstrong and Read 1998; Common-
wealth Secretariat/World Bank Joint Task Force 2000; Armstrong 2002), but
here again, relative size can be expected to leave its mark on economic struc-
tures. Thus the third expectation is that the smaller the state, the more likely its
exports will be concentrated on a narrow range of export products, as the same
resource limitations that affected the diversity of output limit the diversity of
exports (Hirschman 1945; Kuznets, 1960; Commonwealth Secretariat/World
Bank Joint Task Force 2000; Jansen 2004).
Fourth and last, the smaller the state, the more likely that its exports will be
concentrated on a smaller group of countries, once again because of restrictions
in the amount of human capital available for international marketing. Despite
quibbles over one or two of these expectations (Väyrynen 1974; Damijan 1997),
Economic security and size 49
most studies conducted at various intervals, and with different samples of coun-
tries, have underlined their basic validity. Thus smaller countries tend to share
similar structural patterns deriving from their size and linked directly to their
trade dependence. However, these structural patterns do not necessarily translate
into factors of vulnerability (Baldacchino and Bertram 2009: 142). In many
cases, the factors that turn risk into vulnerability stem from under-development
rather than relative size.
Vulnerability indices
There has been a tendency, increasingly apparent in the last two decades, to try
to compress everything into compact, all-encompassing indexing systems.
Among the more famous are the United Nations Committee for Development
Policy’s Human Development Index and the World Bank’s Governance Indica-
tors. It would be disappointing if the discourse on vulnerability had not produced
a variant of its own: and indeed there are several ‘families’ of vulnerability
index, of which four will be compared and briefly analysed here. While the
present author is no enthusiast for experiments in quantitative data that yoke
heterogeneous ideas by violence together (to paraphrase Samuel Johnson’s
comment on metaphysical poetry), it is necessary and may be instructive to
understand why and how these attempts are made. What components are
included or omitted? What indicators are used and do they actually measure
what they claim to? And how are the components weighted to arrive at a single
index – arbitrarily, or by deriving the distribution endogenously? If the latter,
this is usually done by letting a multiple regression analysis loose on the data
and letting the outcome determine the weighting; but this then raises the ques-
tion of the representativity of the sample employed (Bishop 2012: 950–952).
The four sets of vulnerability indices covered here are: (1) a group concen-
trated on the Commonwealth; (2) a group concentrated on the University of
Malta; (3) a group associated with the UNDP; and (4) innovative approaches by
the Commonwealth and the IMF after the 2008 economic crash. For each, the
structure of the index is shown diagrammatically, while Table 3.1 compares the
sets of countries they identify as most and least vulnerable, looking at the com-
position of the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ 15 in each case. The complete sets cannot be
listed here but full source directions will be given.
In the Commonwealth Family, a Small Island Developing States (SIDS)
meeting held in 1990 under the auspices of UNCTAD triggered the first serious
efforts towards developing a vulnerability index. The results, initially published
in 2001 (Atkins et al. 2001), assessed 111 developing countries, including 34
small states, under a composite index combining export dependence, lack of
diversification and proneness to natural disasters, with the emphasis on the first
(see Figure 3.1). Of the states judged most vulnerable, all but one would fall
below the Commonwealth’s cut-off line of 1.5 million inhabitants, and the
exception – Singapore – had only 2.8 million. No state with under 1.5 million
inhabitants finished among the least vulnerable. The final Commonwealth
50 R.T. Griffiths
Vulnerability Index took over the composite index in this form, but weighted it
further – without explaining the details – by ‘average gdp as a proxy for resil-
ience’ (Joint Task Force of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the World Bank
2000: 20). While some small states were more highly ranked this time and the
picture was blurred by including several states with over 1.5 million thought to
share typical ‘smallness’ problems, once more the great majority of ‘most vul-
nerable’ slots (26 out of 28) were occupied by small states, of which 18 were
small island developing states. Only two small states were in the top half of the
draw (ibid.: 20–23).
Meanwhile the Malta team, led by Lino Briguglio, were developing their own
Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) (Brigulio 1995, 1997) and the results were
eventually published in 2003. The index was built up of indicators that shared
the openness and diversification concepts with the Commonwealth index, but
added proxies to represent peripherality and strategic import dependence whilst
omitting the disaster component. In contrast with the Commonwealth index,
which used raw data and model-determined weights, the Malta team first stand-
ardised the variables and then allocated equal weights in the index (see
Figure 3.2).
An adjusted index, EVIAR (EVI augmented by resilience), was also pro-
duced, which included resilience measured by per capita GDP and indeed gave
this 50 per cent of the weighting (Briguglio and Galea 2003). EVIAR’s 117
countries, of which 99 could be considered as developing countries, covered
only 18 of the 34 small developing states included in the Commonwealth list.
While the placing of medium/large countries changed considerably between EVI
and EVIAR – basically according to wealth – both had a clear preponderance of
Figure 3.1 Commonwealth Vulnerability Index (1999) (source: Atkins et al. 2000, 2001;
Commonwealth Secretariat/World Bank Joint Task Force 2000).
Economic security and size 51
Economic
Imports and exports
openness
as percentage GDP
1/4
Export Concentration
concentration exports goods
1/4 and services
Freight costs
Peripherality
and percentage
1/4
import value
Figure 3.2 Economic Vulnerability Index (2003) (source: Briguglio and Galea 2003).
states with a population of under 1.5 million in the most vulnerable category: 9
and 10, respectively, in the bottom 15. The authors’ analysis (published only for
EVI) concluded that small developing island states (EVI 0.470) were more vul-
nerable than other small states (EVI 0.354), and both groups fared worse than
large developing states (EVI 0.220). The five small, developed states in the
sample (EVI 0.258) proved more vulnerable than large states, whether developed
(EVI 0.148) or developing (see Figure 3.3).
Mechandise 1/2
Import
UNCTAD trade concentration
vulnerability
price instability indices
1/3 Services 1/2
Figure 3.3 Economic Vulnerability Index (2005) (source: Cordina and Ferrugia 2005).
52 R.T. Griffiths
In 2005, the Malta team published a refined index (Cordina and Farrugia
2005) that improved on previous efforts by considering the impact of trade con-
centration in both exports and imports; by trying to capture exposure to price
volatility with a measure of product concentration in trade (distinguishing five
broad categories – food, agricultural raw materials, fuels, minerals and ores and
manufactures); and by attempting to capture the attraction of a country for
foreign direct investment (FDI). This was the first time that a financial variable
had appeared in an index. The results seemed to confirm the earlier studies’ find-
ings that vulnerability was inversely related to size, that small island states were
more vulnerable than any other category, and that vulnerability fell as countries
became richer (Cordina and Farrugia 2005: 17–18).2
In 1998 the United Nations Development Programme (henceforth UNDP)
also started work on an Economic Vulnerability Index (see Figure 3.4), designed
to let this variable be used – alongside per capita income and human capital
development – when deciding nations’ eligibility for aid. The version of this
index published in 2005 and re-used in 2008 is covered here; results of a 2011
update were not available at the time of writing.3 The index re-mixed many of
the elements present in the other indices we have examined, though the weights
attached differed. However, country size was directly built into the index, rather
than using openness, and no attempt was made to include resilience (Guillau-
mont 2010, 2011). The analysis of 112 developing countries suggested that
highly under-developed small country states are most vulnerable, followed by
other small island developing states (Guillaumont 2011: 839). No very large
states were considered vulnerable.
Up to this point, the logic of the various indices’ composition reflects their
origins in a community mainly concerned with development issues and their
impact on the smallest states. One striking feature, especially in the light of
Population
Size 1/2
Exposure
index Distance from main markets
Location 1/4
1/2
UNCTAD trade concentration
Specialization 1/4 index and percentage primary
products in GDP
Figure 3.4 UNDP Economic Vulnerability Index (2005–2008) (source: Guillaumont 2009).
Table 3.1 Comparison of most/least vulnerable states from four international indexes (population sizes in millions)
Most vulnerable
Biggest Singapore (2.8) Rep. Congo (49.6)/Rep Congo Rep. Congo Zimbabwe (13)
Smallest Antigua + Barbuda (0.06) St Kitts Nevis (0.4)/Seychelles Reunion (0.7) Tuvalu (0.1)
Mode* Solomon Islands (0.3) Gambia (1.9)/Gambia Djibouti (0.7) Equatorial Guinea (0.5)
<1.5 million 14 of 15 9 of 15/10 out of 15 8 out of 15 7 out of 15
>15 million 0 of 15 1 of 15/1 out of 15 1 out of 15 0 out of 15
Least vulnerable
Biggest China (1,196) China/Indonesia (206) China China
Smallest Uruguay (3.1) Switzerland (7.1)/Luxembourg (0.436) Bhutan (0.5) Israel (0.7)
Mode* Myanmar (44.5) Turkey (63.6)/Netherlands (15.9) Nepal (24) Mexico (107.8)
<1.5 million 0 of 15 0 of 15/1 out of 15 1 out of 15 0 out of 15
>15 million 3 of 15 14 of 15/9 out of 15 8 out of 15 15 out of 15
Notes
* Mode – the middle observation, in this case the eighth country in terms of size.
Key: Commonwealth – Commonwealth Vulnerability Index for Developing Countries, calculated from Atkins et al. (2001).
EVIA/EVIAR – Economic Vulnerability Index/ditto Augmented by Resilience: calculated from Briguglio and Galea (2003); population for 2000 from World Bank
database.
REVI – Economic Vulnerability Index (2005), (Cordina and Farruglia 2005): calculated from country data supplied by authors; population for 2000 from World Bank
database.
UNDP – UNDP Economic Vulnerability Index 2005/8 (Guillaumont 2008).
54 R.T. Griffiths
events since 2008, is the absence of any financial dimension (Snieska et al.
2012). Although international monetary crises were hardly unknown before, the
Lehmann crisis and the financial meltdown that it signalled have finally con-
vinced major institutions of the need to re-assess vulnerability on a broader
basis. Since 2010, the Commonwealth has worked on a new index of which only
the outline is so far known, but which will add at least some new economic com-
ponents, e.g. inflation rates and the weight of debt service (see Figure 3.5). A
logistic performance index, which is more a measure of efficiency in trading
than of the actual costs of trade, is a further interesting addition, if somewhat
misplaced (Goto 2010).
A far more radical approach is evident in the new index Overall Vulnerability
Index being prepared by the IMF (see Figure 3.6). The contours of the index, but
no country results, have been published and reflect sweeping changes – only
trade exposure survives from earlier versions, and it accounts for hardly more
than one-eighth of the final index. Yet foreign indebtedness in the private sector,
as opposed to the government’s borrowing, is still absent from the calculation.
The country results will be very interesting to see, especially when matched
against the relative size of countries.
Components of vulnerability
Moving on from statistical depictions, the various factors determining vulner-
ability will now be discussed in substance to see how they contribute towards
undermining economic security – and what needs to be added for a satisfactory
framework of analysis.
Starting with the classics: trade dependence, of course, forces states onto
markets over which they have little or no control. In addition, smaller states are
Openness
Economic
Inflation
index Food import
Debt service
Logistic performance
index
Insularity
Population size
Figure 3.5 Revised Commonwealth Vulnerability Index (2010) (source: Goto 2012).
Economic security and size 55
Government
Public sector balance 0.33
index Public debt 0.19
Real government
0.31
revenue 0.48
External
Reserves 0.58
sector index
0.25 Exports goods and
services 0.42
Figure 3.6 IMF Overall Vulnerability Index (2011) (source: Moghadam et al. 2011;
Dabla-Norrise and Gündüz 2012).
Resilience
Resilience as a concept has been taken to embrace two associated issues, namely
the ability to withstand an exogenous shock should one occur, and the ability to
respond to a crisis should it develop. The first depends on mechanisms of flex-
ibility and adaptability and the second depends on the quality of governance and
the policy options available (Briguglio et al. 2009: 233–234) The Malta group
has constructed a resilience index based around four elements, macro-economic
stability, market efficiency, good governance and social development (see
Figure 3.7).
Fiscal deficit
Macroeconomic
stability Unemployment rate
1/4 Inflation rate
External debt
Figure 3.7 Economic Resilience Index (2009) (source: Briguglio et al. 2009).
58 R.T. Griffiths
The index represents a brave attempt to push research further forward, but one
can still pose some questions about both the components isolated and the indica-
tors chosen to represent them. For a start, the items chosen to represent macro-
economic stability (fiscal deficit, unemployment and inflation and the weight of
external debt) all appear in the IMF Vulnerability Index as factors to be taken
into account in a state’s initial risk assessment. Second, the indices chosen to
represent good governance seem unnecessarily restrictive, especially when the
more famous and more authoritative World Bank Governance Indicators are
available. Similarly, to describe social development solely in terms of education
and health, derived from the UN’s Human Development Index, seems unneces-
sarily parsimonious when it must surely have been possible to employ other
indicators, such as income inequality or social welfare expenditure. The Malta
index was constructed for 86 countries, both developing and advanced, but
covered none of the small island developing states with populations of less than
1.5 million, as defined by the UNDP (see Table 3.2).
If one looks at the most vulnerable countries, it is obvious that very small
countries are notable by their absence. The smallest country to appear has a
population a little above five million. The obverse is almost true of the most
resilient list where all but four of the top 15 have populations below ten million,
and all the countries in the top portion of the list can be classified as advanced
economies.
Security strategies
Thus our analysis so far suggests that small states are more vulnerable than large
states, but developed small states seem often to be more resilient than large
developed states. The irony of Iceland and Ireland appearing in the top of the
resilience index at the very moment that their economies were collapsing is not
an indication that the index is at fault, but of the fact that these states were vul-
nerable in a way that was not adequately captured by the existing indices – nor,
to be honest, in economic analyses preceding the Lehmann crash of 2007.
Small(er) states were quickly drawn into the vortex of the financial crisis. A
recent OECD study suggests that their inability to control monetary policy
Table 3.2 Fifteen most and fifteen least vulnerable states in the Economic Resilience
Index 2009 (population size, thousands)
Source: (Briguglio 2009). Population for 2005 from World Bank database, available online at: http://
data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?page=2 (accessed 25 November 2013).
Economic security and size 59
(especially in a monetary union) meant that asset prices outstripped interest rates
and fuelled the construction bubbles in Ireland, Spain and Portugal. Moreover,
even if they did have recourse to monetary instruments, raising interest rates
would most probably have sucked in capital and negated the intended effect
(Sutherland et al. 2010: 15, 28). A further problem is that the traditional fiscal
policy instruments available to larger countries are likely to be muted in their
effect when applied in smaller economies. This is because much of the multiplier
effect of an injection of state spending is likely to be lost to leakages through
imports (ibid.: 26). One way out is to practise fiscal prudence and use ‘automatic
stabilizers’ to absorb the initial impact of the shock (Buti and Van den Noord
2004: 13, 16), and the OECD study specifically compliments Denmark, the
Netherlands and Switzerland for a successful policy of combining ‘initial cush-
ioning with a quick adjustment’ (Sutherland et al. 2010: 44).
The small state literature suggests that (richer) smaller states have developed
successful security strategies that may not shield them from powerful economic
forces emanating from abroad, but which allow them successfully to adapt. In
his classic study of small European economies, Peter Katzenstein argued that the
paramount need for small countries to remain competitive contributed directly to
their development of high welfare expenditure and neo-corporatist governance
structures. Potentially damaging private wage demands were bought off with
public goods, including a voice in policy making, and welfare payments eased
the risk to citizens in making structural adjustments to the economy. Consensus
was more easily achieved around policy measures and inefficient, rent-seeking
sectors were more readily sacrificed as industrial policy targeted potential growth
areas (Katzenstein 1985; see also Midttun et al. 2006). Criticised by those who
interpreted this as prescriptive rather than descriptive, Katzenstein later modified
this position to stress that the main advantage available to small states lay in
their ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances, which was itself a
reflection of the social cohesion that they had been able to engineer (Katzenstein
2003).
Another insight was afforded by comparing (European) small countries with
neighbouring regions of larger countries. This is made possible by the regional
counting procedures adopted by the European Union. In almost every case and
in almost every measure of performance, the small state did better than the
neighbouring region, despite having all the apparent disadvantages of market
size and none of the fall-back options of transfer payments and support from
central government. The compensatory advantage, it was suggested, was to be
found in the independence of a small state in defining its own sectoral and other
meso-economic policies (Armstrong and Read 1998).
Thus, smaller richer states have the advantages of possessing economic
resources to sustain good governance structures and to support strong social
cohesion around policies of adjustment and adaptation. Their position is a far cry
from the picture of the small island developing states in the Pacific and the
Caribbean that is painted by the Commonwealth, World Bank and UNDP.
Indeed, there is no barrier to their adopting the same governance practices and
60 R.T. Griffiths
encouraging the same strategic adaptability as demonstrated by the states with
the main success stories in Western Europe and elsewhere. In a challenge to the
institutional pessimism of the vulnerability school, Baldacchino and Bertram
(2009) suggest that this is exactly what many of them are already doing. They
thus do not lack strategies for economic security and, without being exhaustive,
in the rest of this chapter we will attempt to cover some of these, starting with
vulnerabilities stemming from the classical ‘small state’ literature.
Most literature stresses that foreign trade dependence is more of an advantage
than a structural disadvantage; but it is, per se, unpredictable and leaves coun-
tries especially vulnerable to policy changes by major trading partners. One solu-
tion is to tie oneself as closely as possible to one major trading partner, if
possible through a customs union or else through another form of preferential
trading arrangement (Mansfield and Reinhardt 2008). This was a prime motiva-
tion of the Benelux countries in the early stages of European integration. What-
ever loss of independence this entails in trade policy is outweighed by
constraining the possibly damaging autonomous decisions of the other (often
larger) party. Small states love international agreements, the more complex and
more binding the better.
This brings us to the volatility in export earnings caused by an extreme reli-
ance on particular primary products. This has been referred to in the literature as
a ‘resource curse’, but recent research on the period since 1970 (when the price
trend was upwards) has suggested that the long-term effects of abundant
resources on growth have been positive. It is the short-term instability that
creates the problem (Cavalcanti et al. 2012). One answer would be to combine
with similar producers and form an international commodity agreement cartel,
but past experience suggests that this is rarely a permanent solution. In some
cases, prices are stabilised at too high a level, and this attracts outside competi-
tors, as has been the case with OPEC. In others, the high prices stimulated over-
production and the agreement collapsed because it could not bear the costs of
maintain ever-growing stockpiles – coffee and tin are good examples. Another
danger is that individual members start ‘cheating’ by increasing their own output
to take full benefit of high prices maintained by everyone else restricting theirs,
as proved the case in the international steel cartel between the world wars.
If an international solution is not an option for the problem of price volatility,
then a stabilization fund offers another option. In this case, one puts (part of ) the
government’s income in good years into a savings account upon which it can
draw when prices are low. This does mean sacrificing the option to employ the
same resources for investment, for example in economic diversification (UN
2008: 45–48). Moreover, if the idea is simple, the implementation is fraught with
difficulties. Politicians being what they are, there will inevitably be a temptation
to use the account to reward party allies and to buy votes in the build-up to elec-
tions. And dictators being who they are, there is always a temptation to add a
wing to a palace, to buy yet another pair of shoes or to add a few more noughts
to a Swiss bank account. But a greater temptation is to assume that an upward
trend is permanent, and to abandon the programme prematurely.6
Economic security and size 61
The solutions described for the volatility issue are really ‘coping’ mechan-
isms. The way to obtain greater security in the longer term is to diversify output
and sources of export earnings. A recent review explained that ‘for most devel-
oping countries, economic insecurity is first and foremost a development chal-
lenge (that) calls for economic diversification and policies that foster productive
investment’ (UN 2008: 7). This does not necessarily mean developing a whole
new range of commodity exports or even commercializing some colourful local
custom to attract the odd cruise ship for a stop-over. Rather, attracting some
foreign direct investment to allow the development of a link or component in an
international supply chain may be sufficient to stimulate the economy and estab-
lish the beginnings of a niche sector. Of course, for that to happen, the invest-
ment climate must be favourable: namely, stable, transparent, well regulated and
predictable. And this is often where the problems really start.
There is a large body of literature associating good governance with growth.
In this respect, the relatively small high-tax, high-spend welfare-ist economies of
Western Europe appear to offer affirmation of this relationship. The World Bank
is among the leading advocates of improved governance structures as a route out
of under-development. The amount of investment capital slushing round the
international system dwarfs the sums available in development aid. Moreover,
private capital not only helps close the investment gap, but it often comes
accompanied by the latest technology and the human capital to make it all work.
The problem is that although there is a strong statistical relationship between
governance and growth, there is far more debate about the direction of the cau-
sality. A society that can afford to pay its officials enough to stop them being
pulled into corruption, and that can staff its services so that they function well,
can afford good governance. Meanwhile, endemic corruption, capricious
decision-making, cronyism and nepotism are a blight over almost all developing
economies, large or small. And, as long as that state of affairs is allowed to
prevail, economic security will remain a distant dream for small developing
states.
Reflections
Small states, despite their inherent vulnerability, still tend to perform relatively
well in economic terms. Armstrong and Read (1998) have demonstrated that
small states in Western Europe outperform the neighbouring regions in larger
states. Baldacchino and Bertram (2009: 147–150) raid the library of available
statistical indicators to demonstrate the robustness of small state performance.
Most recently, in an up-to-date literature review, Bishop (2012: 949) summar-
ized the state of play by declaring that ‘almost all small states are doing “better”
developmentally than the least-developed countries in the world, some spectacu-
larly so’.
In looking at the economic security of small states, the nature of the vulner-
ability makes it difficult to predict the direction and timing of a threat. The con-
sciousness of potential vulnerability, if it fosters the ability to isolate a security
62 R.T. Griffiths
challenge, is in fact a precondition for the preparation of strategies to mitigate its
impact or preferably avoid it altogether. In this respect, one can question the use-
fulness of a composite index and even the relevance of some of the proxy indica-
tors it contains.
Another reflection is that the nature of security threats, or rather the perception
of them, has changed. There has been a remarkable shift in the last decade from
trade-related to finance-related crises, and this is being incorporated into the new
indices being conceived. However, it is rather unsettling to see the IMF abandon-
ing all the earlier trade-related features and employing exclusively financial and
monetary variables – unless it is intended simply to reflect that particular threat dir-
ection. Composite indices tend to be better when they are not too dispersed and the
IMF index might be an ideal instrument for a more restricted goal.
Small state studies today are thus waking up to the new threats inherent in
globalization, and seeing that ‘casino capitalism’ (Strange 1986) is not a place
for players with small pockets. The next time a financial crisis occurs, we will be
able to test our indices against it, but it is less certain whether having such an
index will help us avoid it. More to the point, however, is that we should stop
becoming mesmerized by yesterday’s threats. Other chapters in this book point,
for example, to environmental threats arising from climate shifts, and other
natural hazards such as pandemics, that have yet to make an appearance in the
economics-oriented vulnerability/resilience debate. There are further risks, such
as the potential threat to the world’s critical cyber-infrastructure or the exposure
of the world’s GPS systems to the incidence of sun-flares, that will have untold
economic consequences. Here again, the size and sophistication of economies
will be determinants in the construction of adequate defences and the capacity
for restoration. These areas, too, still need to penetrate the literature. . . . But in
separate indices, please.
Notes
1 In 1992 the UN Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro,
acknowledged the particular problems faced by small island developing states (SIDS)
and two years later the first Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of
Small Island States was held in Barbados. The conference set up a permanent frame-
work for research and cooperation among the SIDS and also established criteria for
membership. It recommended a maximum size for inclusion in the group of 1.5 million,
and linked this to a threshold of per capita income (Commonwealth Advisory Group
1997). A group of countries also pressed within the World Trade Organization (WTO)
for recognition of their special status and the need for new trade rules to accommodate
their problems. This need was recognized at the Doha Ministerial meeting in 2001,
which opened the way for special treatment. However, difficulty in agreeing either on
the exact criteria needed to qualify for special treatment or on the nature of such con-
cessions kept the issue on the agenda for the next decade – and has kept the research
agenda alive ever since (Corrales-Leal et al. 2007).
2 The Malta team have also produced an ‘Economic Resilience’ index, which is dis-
cussed separately later and which gives interestingly different results.
3 Details of the methodological changes in 2011 are available online at: www.un.org/en/
development/desa/policy/cdp/ldc/ldc_criteria_timeline.pdf (accessed 15 January 2013).
Economic security and size 63
4 It is obviously not good to be concentrated in ores and metals, but if the output was
gold, the index would have been only 6.11. Equally, food might have been compara-
tively stable but if exports comprised sugar, the volatility would have been 17.24. Sim-
ilarly, agricultural raw materials might have been a tranquil 8.31, but a focus on cotton
would have pushed the index up to 19.47. Data derived from http://unctadstat.unctad.
org/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx (accessed 25 November 2013).
5 For manufactures it is difficult to determine prices, since goods are rarely homogeneous.
They usually fluctuate less in price and any changes, if they are calculated, are measured
through the terms-of-trade, which capture price changes of imports relative to exports;
this is much less refined and suitable for incorporation into a vulnerability index.
6 The Commonwealth/World Bank was particularly supine in this context. While
acknowledging the problem and the availability of the solution (which has been around
since the 1930s), it hides behind costs and lack of experience, and leaves recommenda-
tions to yet another task-force (Commonwealth Secretariat/World Bank Joint Task
Force 2000, pp. 26–27).
Bibliography
Alesina, A., Spolaore, E. and Wacziarg, R. (1997) ‘Economic Integration and Political
Disintegration’, NBER working paper no. 6163, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Alwang, J., Siegel, P.B. and Jorgensen, S.L. (2001) Vulnerability: A View from Different
Disciplines, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, 0155, Washington, DC.
Armstrong, H. (2002) ‘The Phantom of Liberty? Economic Growth and the Vulnerability
of Small States’, Journal of International Development, 14: 435–458.
Armstrong, H. and Read, R. (1998) ‘Trade and Growth in Small States: The Impact of
Global Trade Liberalisation’, The World Economy, 21(4): 563–585.
Atkins, J.P., Mazzi, S.A. and Easter, C.D. (2000) ‘Commonwealth Vulnerability Index for
Developing Countries’, economic paper no. 40, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Baldacchino, G. and Bertram, G. (2009) ‘The Beak of the Finch: Insights into the Eco-
nomic Development of Small Economies’, The Round Table: Commonwealth Journal
of International Affairs, 98(401): 141–160.
Bishop, M.L. (2012) ‘The Political Economy of Small States: Enduring Vulnerability’,
Review of International Political Economy, 19(5): 942–990.
Briguglio, L. (1995) ‘Small Island States and their Economic Vulnerabilities’, World
Development, 23(9): 1615–1632.
Briguglio, L. (1997) ‘Alternative Economic Vulnerability Indices for Developing Coun-
tries’, report prepared for the Expert Group on Vulnerability Index, United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs-UN(DESA), December 1997.
Briguglio, L. and Galea, W. (2003) ‘Updating and Augmenting the Economic Vulner-
ability Index’, occasional paper by the Islands and Small States Institute of the Univer-
sity of Malta.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N. and Vella, S. (2009) ‘Economic Vulnerability and
Resilience: Concepts and Measurements’, Oxford Development Studies, 37(3):
229–247.
Buti, M. and Van den Noord, P. (2004) ‘Fiscal Policy in the EMU. Rules, Discretion and
Political Incentives’, European Commission, DG for Economic and Financial Affairs,
economic paper, no. 206.
Cavalcanti, T.V., Mohaddes, K and Raissi, M. (2012) ‘Commodity Price Volatility and
the Sources of Growth’, IMF working paper WP/12/12.
64 R.T. Griffiths
Combes, J.-L. and Guillaumont, P. (2002) ‘Commodity Price Volatility, Vulnerability
and Development’, Development Policy Review, 20(1): 25–39.
Commonwealth Advisory Group (1997) A Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulner-
ability, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Commonwealth Secretariat/World Bank Joint Task Force on Small States (2000) Small
States: Meeting Challenges in the Global Economy, Washington, DC.
Cordina, G. and Ferrugia, N. (2005) ‘Measuring Vulnerability: A Methodological Review
and refinement Based on Partner Country and Price Volatility Issues’, Occasional
papers on islands and small states, 2/2005, University of Malta.
Corrales-Leal, W., Baritto, F. and Mohan, S.A. (2007) ‘Special and Differential Treat-
ment for Small and Vulnerable Countries based on the Situational Approach’, ICTSD
issue paper no. 2, Geneva.
Dabla-Norris, E. and Gündüz, Y.B. (2012) ‘Exogenous Shocks and Growth Crises in
Low-Income Countries: A Vulnerability Index’, IMF working paper WP/12/264.
Damijan, J.P. (1997) ‘Main Economic Characteristics of Small Countries: Some Empiri-
cal Evidence’, Development and International Cooperation, 13(24/25): 43–84.
Easterly, W. and Kraay, A. (2000) ‘Small states, Small Problems? Income, Growth, and
Volatility in Small States’, World Development, 28(11): 2013–2027, available online at:
www.worldbank.org/research/growth/pdfiles/kraay1.pdf (accessed 15 January 2013).
Erten, B. and Ocampo, J.A. (2012) ‘Super-cycles of Commodity Prices Since the mid-
nineteenth Century’, DESA working paper no. 112.
Finicelli, A., Sbracia, M. and Zaghini, A. (2008) ‘A Disaggregated Analysis of the Export
performance of some Industrial and Emerging Countries’, MPRA discussion paper, 92.
Goto, M. (2010) ‘Commonwealth Composite Vulnerability Index’, presentation at Bien-
nial Small States Meeting, Marlborough House, London, 28–29 July 2010.
Guillaumont, P. (2008) ‘An Economic Vulnerability Index: Its Design and Use for Inter-
national Development Policy’, Helsinki: UNU-WIDER research paper.
Guillaumont, P. (2010) ‘Assessing the Economic Vulnerability of Small island Develop-
ing States and the Least Developed Countries’, Journal of Development Studies, 46(5):
828–854.
Guillaumont, P. (2011) ‘The Concept of Structural Economic Vulnerability and its Relev-
ance for the Identification of Least Developed Countries and other Purposes (Nature,
Measurement and Evolution)’, CDP background paper 12, ST/ESA/2011/CDP/1.
Hirschman, A.O. (1945) National power and the Structure of Foreign Trade, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Jansen, M. (2004) ‘Income Volatility in Small and Developing Economies: Export Con-
centration Matters’, WTO discussion paper no. 3.
Katzenstein P.J. (1985) Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe,
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Katzenstein, P.J. (2003) ‘ “Small States” and Small States Revisited’, New Political
Economy, 8(1): 9–30.
Kuznets, S. (1960) ‘Economic Growth of Small Nations’, in Robinson, E.A.G. (ed.) Eco-
nomic Consequences of the Size of Nations, London: Macmillan.
Liou, F.M. and Ding, C.G. (2002) ‘Subgrouping Small States Based on Socio-Economic
Characteristics’, World Development, 30(7):1289–1306.
Lloyd, P.J. (1968) International Trade Problems of Small Nations, Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Mansfield, E.D. and Reinhardt, E. (2008) ‘International Institutions and the Volatility of
International Trade’, International Organization, 46(4): 621–652.
Economic security and size 65
Midttun, A., Gautesen, K. and Gjolberg, M. (2006) ‘The Political Economy of Corporate
Social Responsibility in Western Europe’, Corporate Governance, 6(4): 369–385.
Moghadam, R., Cottarelli, C. and and Ostry, J. (2011) ‘Managing Volatility: A Vulner-
ability Exercise for Low-Income Countries’, paper prepared by the Strategy, Policy,
and Review, Fiscal Affairs, and Research Departments, Washington, available online
at: www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2011/030911.pdf (accessed 25 November 2013).
Montalbano, P. (2011) ‘Trade Openness and Developing Countries’ Vulnerability: Con-
cepts, Misconceptions and Directions for Research’, World Development, 39(9):
1489–1502.
Rothschild, K.W. (1993) ‘Kleinstaat und Interdependenz. Anmerkungen zur Klienstaaten-
theorie aus oekonomischer Sicht’ in Waschkuhn, A. (ed.) Kleinstaat: Grundsätzliche
und aktuelle Probleme, Vaduz: 71–87.
Salvatore, D. (1997) ‘The Economic Performance of Small versus Large Nations’, Devel-
opment and International Cooperation, 13(24–25): 21–42.
Seth, A. and Ragab, A. (2012) ‘Macroeconomic Vulnerability in Developing Countries:
Approaches and Issues’, IPC-IP working paper no. 94.
Snieska, V., Draksaite, A. and Zaburaite, D. (2012) ‘The Peculiarities of Contemporary
Management of Foreign Debt in a Small Open Economy’, Economics and Manage-
ment, 17(3): 1042–1048.
Snorrason, S.T. (2012) Asymmetric Economic Integration: Contributions to Economics,
Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Spatafora, N. and Tytell, I (2009) ‘Commodity Terms of trade: The History of Booms
and Busts’, IMF working paper WP/09/205.
Strange, S. (1986) Casino Capitalism, Oxford: Blackwell.
Sutherland, D., Hoeller, D., Égert, B and Röhn, O. (2010) ‘Counter-cyclical Economic
Policy’, OECD Economics Department working paper no. 760.
Väyrynen, R. (1974) ‘The Position of Small Powers in the West European Network of
Economic Relations’, European Journal of Political Research, 2: 143–178.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008) World Economic and
Social Survey, Overcoming Economic Insecurity, New York: United Nations.
Ward, M (1975) ‘Dependent Development – Problems of Economic Planning in Small
Developing Countries’ in Selwyn, P. (ed.) Development Policy in Small Countries,
London: Croom Helm Ltd, pp. 115–133.
4 Societal security and small states
Alyson J.K. Bailes
Concept development5
In the 1990s, Buzan quickly updated his own concept to recognize that societal
security included, rather than contrasted with, other dimensions like the eco-
nomic and environmental: the true dichotomy was between society and the state.
But what was concretely different about societal agendas? In a European climate
of thought dominated by war in the Balkans, attention naturally focused on the
needs of societal communities not co-terminous with the state, such as ethnic
(and/or religious) groups that stretched across borders and sometimes challenged
the state they were supposed to belong to. Conversely, an established more
homogenous society could feel threatened by migration and cultural dilution
(Wæver et al. 1993). These emphases led to expert debates over how to judge
the reality of self-claimed ‘communities’, and how to cope with possibly plural
‘identities’. More seriously, it was pointed out that ethnic nationalism and fear of
the cultural ‘other’ were often forces for insecurity, and not necessarily an ethi-
cally superior yardstick6 (McSweeney 1996).
Buzan’s other seminal notion of ‘securitization’ may help in rising above this
confusion. As explained in Chapter 2,7 securitization theory asks how and by
whom a security challenge is defined. Often, it is national leaders who put such
labels on new developments in hopes of gaining permission to handle them by
tougher-than-normal methods. But the same process can work bottom-up, if
society demands tough official action on a popular concern such as the cultural,
economic, or other impacts of immigration – which the government may have its
own reasons for tolerating, or at least, may prefer to handle by non-securitized
means (Huysmans 2000; Ibryamova 2002). Such societal demands are not neces-
sarily more objective, wise or reasonable than top-down security ‘labelling’.
Indeed, they may obscure other objectively valid security concerns, such as the
threats and risks that immigrants themselves are exposed to.
Societal security and small states 69
Setting a practical agenda
What is clear is that, if only on practical grounds, a state wanting a sustainable
security policy cannot define the threat simply as whatever society imagines at
the time (which also begs the question, Who speaks for society?). It must resist
unreasonable or transient bottom-up demands: including those that discriminate
between or damage other components in society,8 but also those exceeding a
government’s power (e.g. an expectation of total protection for all citizens trav-
elling abroad). At the same time, it must induce taxpayers to fund things
(military and other) that the experts consider necessary, but which bring no
obvious benefit to citizens in their daily lives.
For these and other reasons, the ‘societal security’ used as a policy denomina-
tor by such states as Norway and Sweden has come to differ greatly from the
conceptual topic of Buzan’s, Wæver’s, and related writings. Typically, govern-
ments have evaded the pitfalls of societal ‘identity’ by trying to frame the agenda
in more precise, concrete, administratively and financially feasible terms. In turn,
a separate scholarly literature has grown up on the challenges and implications
of this official approach, as seen notably in the large Norwegian SAMRISK
cooperative research programme.9 We shall now look at Nordic examples of
how the concept has been re-framed in practice.
Norway’s central government website defines societal security as comprising
‘events that threaten central societal institutions, our common security or indi-
viduals’ sense of safety’.10 In a working report from 2007–2008, the Ministry of
Justice and Police (which in Norway holds the main responsibility emergency
management) further defines the policy as resting on a:
risk, threat and vulnerability analysis that includes natural disasters and
climate change, pandemics, collapse of critical infrastructure, accidents
involving dangerous substances, terror and other activities threatening
public security, and challenges in the High North.11
The Defence Ministry’s definition is also interesting, given that emergency hand-
ling may call both upon civil defence and – if necessary – regular military forces.
As the Defence Report of 2008 puts it,
What we see here is that societal security in government parlance has come to
focus overwhelmingly on the event (the emergency, the crisis), and on the
coordination efforts and resource-building needed for response to ad hoc contin-
gencies (Sundelius 2005). As the SAMRISK website mentioned above plainly
states: ‘The point of departure of societal security efforts is that crises can and
must be prevented’. Such a focus shifts the whole societal discourse towards
terms and spheres like ‘risk assessment’, ‘crisis management’, ‘preparedness’,
‘robustness’ and ‘resilience’ – concepts that carry recognizable and rather
precise meanings in modern security work, independently of societal theory as
such. This approach does not have to mean ‘securitizing’ societal endeavours in
over-hard and traditional terms, as the Norwegian central government website
extends its scope as far as (among others) national health, road accident preven-
tion and search and rescue at sea.14 Indeed, hardly any department of government
is exempt from the coverage of the policy and the associated demands for
coordination (Burgess and Mouhleb 2007).
What the event-based focus does allow is to set limits both to central inter-
vention and to securitization itself. Thus, if a problem arises in a non-military
field – say, public health – that the normally responsible authority (here, health
ministry) is capable of handling, it will be left in that authority’s hands. Only if a
health crisis (like a major pandemic) disrupts broader aspects of national life,
and needs exceptional means to control it, will higher-level inter-departmental
mechanisms be activated.15 This method, taking ‘peacetime’ departmental
responsibility as the default, is typical of all Nordic government systems practis-
ing societal security or an analogous approach.16 Most obviously, it aims to
avoid creeping ‘militarization’, excessive securitization or over-centralization of
the workings of society and government. But it also offers the authorities some
protection against having to convert each new public neurosis into security
action. If an issue cannot be shown to produce potential large-scale emergencies,
it will in principle remain a ‘peacetime’ responsibility of the appropriate agency,
or – if the government declines to handle it at all – a focus for voluntary efforts.
There are, of course, risks in this pragmatic solution, starting with the danger
that ‘creeping’ processes undermining society’s safety and resilience may be
neglected until too late; and event-related ‘preparedness’ will overshadow the
scope for prophylaxis and positive security-building. Further, thwarting bottom-
up attempts at securitization risks leaving the most concerned groups and indi-
viduals to find their own, potentially violent, means of exorcizing their fears.
Given the transnational nature of many societal security challenges –
epidemic control, supply and infrastructure safety, combating climate change
and human threats like terrorism and smuggling – the Nordic states also
Societal security and small states 71
acknowledge the need for extensive external cooperation for handling them.
Possible partners start with the responsible UN agencies and, for economic/fin-
ancial issues, the international financial institutions (IFIs). Many issues are
appropriate for regional and sub-regional collaboration, where Europe has a
plethora of institutions involved. NATO has long had plans to assist in major
civil emergencies, and the European Union (EU) has developed mechanisms for
deploying financial, professional and mechanical aid to member states. The EU’s
Lisbon Treaty, entering into force on 1 December 2009, introduces a provision
(Article 222) obliging both member states and the Brussels organs to provide
joint assistance for any member suffering a severe natural emergency or similar
damage from a terrorist strike (European Union 2007).17 This legal obligation
gives new force to the debate over whether a common level of societal security
could, and should, be defined for the whole of ‘European society’ (Boin et al.
2007). All EU members, after all, share a common market and a common space
for movement of people and funds; while even neighbouring non-members find
themselves increasingly looking to the EU for partnership and guidance across
the non-military security field.18
Practical implications
The practicalities start with intra-governmental and cross-sectoral cooperation. In
principle, designing this both for ‘peacetime’ policy making and emergency hand-
ling should be simpler in a small administration. The role of the ‘centre’ is clearer
in a small territory lacking part-autonomous sub-divisions (like US states or
German Länder); centre–local communications should be easier with fewer players
involved, even when physical distances are great. Ministries and agencies should
be fewer in number and will combine more functions than in a larger, more sub-
divided and specialized system. There should be fewer officials overall, increasing
the odds that they will know each other personally. Cross-sectoral cooperation
should also be easier mutatis mutandis; not just because fewer social, business,
media etc. leaders come into the game, but because a small elite tends to be more
homogenous with many cross-cutting family and personal bonds.
Thus far the ideal narrative; in fact, one need not look very far to see that small
states can have chronic internal divisions of their own for all the same reasons that
apply elsewhere. Ethnic minorities linked to neighbouring countries and immigrant
communities alike can reduce social homogeneity, introduce territorial differences
that complicate planning19 and even lead to security tensions and antagonisms in
their own right.20 Politics may be highly polarized and/or ideologized, and in the
smallest states it tends to become also extremely personal. Closeness in private life
does not necessarily stop people playing aggressive, zero-sum games with each
other in political life; it may rather give them an exaggerated sense of security in
doing so. Another effect of closeness can be to blur notions of ethics and public
service and facilitate the more subtle (sometimes not so subtle) forms of nepotism,
corruption and general abuse of power. Conversely, the gulf in personnel and
philosophy between politics (and the public service) and private business may be
too wide for comfort even in a nation of a few million.
Governmental machines are not exempt from such factionalism. Ministries
and agencies may resist coordination and quibble on demarcation for reasons of
partisanship as well as empire-building, because their few, overburdened
officials see it as a last straw breaking their backs, or just because they fail to see
the point in such a small administration. Local elites may resist a centrally
Societal security and small states 73
framed and coordinated security plan because they do not trust the centre’s
understanding of their distinctive needs; while in certain cultures (including the
Scandinavian culture), centralization in itself is suspect as a threat to freedom
and diversity. All these factors can discourage the adoption of a societal security
concept – with its stress on comprehensiveness, mutual dependence and shared
discipline – in the first place, but also undermine its translation into practice.21
The same small state failings would vitiate almost any modern system of
security, however. The real question is whether societal security may ease and/or
circumvent such internal differences better than the alternative concepts. Some
arguments can be made in its favour:
• in not a few small states including Nordic ones, the most basic security dis-
agreement is between pro-defence and anti-military views, including
opposite attitudes to outside ‘protectors’. The societal approach avoids and
may bridge such divisions by focusing on ‘softer’ and ‘newer’ fields of
security, including natural and accidental risks, whose meaning for a small
society is hardly contestable. It also shifts external military protection from
centre-stage and can foster greater self-confidence in international partner-
ships thanks to greater (if still finite) self-sufficiency;
• the wide range of topics covered by an official societal security concept
allows different actors’ priorities to be balanced and potentially reconciled,
while leaving room to ‘securitize’ new issues as needed;
• it militates for better coordination at the highest (Prime Ministerial) level,
which might help overcome inter-agency vendettas;
• by emphasizing bottom-up action, it promotes a rational degree of decen-
tralization that may accommodate genuine internal differences;
• the positive slant that it gives to using non-state (business, NGO) capacities,
if properly followed through, could help to overcome both former rifts
between these constituencies and government, and ill-defined ‘underhand’
relationships leading to corruption.22
One final advantage of societal security lies in its ability to move the management
of external partnerships away from the ‘realist’ and ‘asymmetric’ process of bar-
gaining for military support. Against transnational hazards like terrorism, disease or
climate change, big states have a positive interest in helping small ones to avoid
becoming weak links in the chain. Further, for effective responses, states of all sizes
need to accept and obey universal regulations and standardized norms, creating a
more level playing-field. The flexibility and transparency of small communities
may, indeed, allow such states to find faster solutions for emerging hazards, revers-
ing the usual security ‘food chain’. It remains true that big states have more power
to impose their own preferred solutions, regardless of quality – as when the US
hyper-securitized the issues of terrorism and nuclear proliferation after September
2001 – with results that can be both normatively offensive and burdensome for
smaller partners. But a small state that only thinks of security as a military calculus
is more likely to be caught off-balance by such pressures than one practising a
74 A.J.K. Bailes
multi-dimensional approach, with a variety of partners, and with awareness of the
need to maintain basic societal values as well as political consensus at home.
How much of this applies to states that are not just small but poor, isolated
and lacking effective regional integration, or those struggling to create a new
security system after conflict? Clearly, societal security would not help them
much if it had to be applied always, everywhere, following Norwegian and
Swedish models. Yet there is no reason why it should be. Its main benefits could
be replicated with quite different functional priorities – starting for instance with
internal armed violence and/or hunger – and perhaps also shifting from the
dominant ‘event’ focus to steadily improving the societal experience in ‘peace-
time’. Admittedly, much the same could be attempted under the flag of a ‘human
security’ rather than ‘societal’ policy. But the latter could help highlight the pos-
itive potential of different social structures, including the remarkable resilience
shown by many non-Western communities in far worse than Western conditions.
It would demand a full-spectrum approach including economic, financial and
functional security, aspects now admitted to be under-played in most established
concepts both of humanitarian aid and post-conflict peacebuilding.23 By promot-
ing rational analysis of ways to mitigate transational threats, it might create new
impetus for neighbourhood cooperation and help overcome former divisions
based on ‘hard’ military differences. Of course, none of these possible benefits
depends on the name: a policy that is ‘societal’ in substance should work just as
well under any label that chimes with local attitudes and traditions.
A final critique
As foreseen above, this analysis needs to be completed with further conceptual
and practical snags of a societal approach. A small state must be especially
careful not to waste energy (and credibility) on half-baked ideas, or on solutions
that come with intolerable side-effects.
The most basic conceptual question is, what is ‘society’? Only under the sim-
plest model of the nation-state does this have a self-evident answer. Aside from
the ethno-religious divisions recognized by Buzan and Wæver, most states today
must accommodate new immigrants and asylum seekers, migrant workers and
tourists – the last potentially multiplying the seasonal population in scenic loca-
tions. Are all these humans part of the ‘society’ that the country’s leadership
aims to protect? Could they also have active roles in emergency handling? In
either case, how to brief and prepare them, taking account of their probably dif-
ferent security needs, competences and attitudes in a crisis? Can government do
anything, and if so what, to improve the subjective sense of solidarity and mutual
responsibility among such disparate groups?
Conversely, what to do about national citizens who live and work abroad or
go abroad as tourists and run into a war or civil emergency? Do they remain part
of the ‘society’ that the mother-state must protect, if necessary by repatriating
them? Does that responsibility extend to their material property and investments?
How to help them without risking interference and distorting aid priorities for
Societal security and small states 75
the (possibly worse-hit) local population? All these issues faced Nordic govern-
ments whose citizens were hit by the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004,
and their varying responses had such political resonance that in Sweden they
ultimately hastened the fall of a government (Nord et al. 2006). By the time the
same countries faced an evacuation of their nationals from Lebanon in 2006, all
had learned some lessons and reacted more consistently, including an approach
that – tellingly – focused on their passport-carrying citizens regardless of ethni-
city. For real efficiency, however, small and medium states must always cosider
teaming up with like-minded ones and/or working through an institution, such as
the European Union, with its long-standing efforts for reciprocal and joint con-
sular assistance.24 This is one external aspect of the point made above about an
incipient ‘societal’ community for the whole European space.
A second general issue is whether the concentration on exceptional and dra-
matic ‘civil emergencies’ really makes sense. Is there not a risk of over-
securitizing the single event, risking over-reaction and panic on the one hand,
and inattention to the hazards of ‘normal’ life on the other? If citizens are given
to believe they need only follow security disciplines in exceptional cases, not
only may (as already argued) ‘creeping’ dangers like climate change or ageing
populations be taken too lightly, but bad security habits and selfishness may
aggravate losses from everyday hazards like traffic and industrial accidents,
interpersonal violence, substance abuse, street brawls and hooliganism. True,
these latter issues are hard to tackle with traditional security-policy tools; but a
wise government could try to develop its ‘societal’ concept in a way that fos-
tered awareness and responsibility at the micro- as well as the macro-level. A
futher good idea would be to make provision for regularly reviewing the given
threat/risk spectrum, including possible ‘new horizon’ issues.
A related challenge, especially for states with a high quality of life, is to
motivate the individual citizen to have any sense of security responsibility and
ownership at all. When a Nordic state, for instance, offers everyone ‘social’
security against the effects of all socio-economic mishaps and personal life
choices, how can it explain that the same individuals must help shoulder the
burden in apparently tougher, life-threatening emergencies? The Nordic notion
of ‘trygghet’ (safeness, protectedness) as the aim of social policy can too easily
‘leak’ its statist, top-down assumptions into the realm of security proper, casting
society as a flock to be shepherded rather than a self-aware, self-protecting
entity. This happens more easily when past security discourse has been over-
whelmingly military-focused and/or when personal security duties are seen as
limited to military service. Attitudes in different nations vary so much that it is
hard to see a single solution, but arguably the change of approach needed is
largely in the hands of the state. As found in a recent Icelandic study,25 individu-
als even in the richest societies can possess security skills, awareness, and a
readiness to help that they simply do not ‘securitize’ in their own discourse, and
that the official machine too often fails to notice or respect.
Various practical difficulties in setting up and pursuing a societal security
concept can be noted more briefly:
76 A.J.K. Bailes
• Should the word ‘societal’ itself be the official denominator of policy, or
some other term with better local resonance (and more obvious meaning)?
• Should there be a single all-embracing societal security concept covering all
uses of military forces and assets (also for traditional defence), or does the
Swedish/Norwegian model, keeping a separate ‘total’ defence concept for
the forces but emphasizing civil–military cooperation, have merits?
• What are the best models of horizontal and vertical coordination among
government actors, including the centre/province division of roles? What
are the respective merits of giving strong coordinating powers to one minis-
try or coordination agency, and of spreading responsibilities more equally?
What is the correct role for the head of government and his/her office? How
should external partnerships and communications be factored in?
• What resources should be spent on societal security overall and how should
they be prioritized, inter alia, between military and non-military spending?
• What is the optimum small state design for prevention, planning (including
exercises and training), incident response, reconstruction and integration of
lessons learned?
• How should government cooperate with private business actors, NGOs, the
media, and relevant social actors? Should active partnerships be legally
defined, or based on commercial contracts, or should they remain ad hoc
and voluntary? How much is it acceptable to delegate to non-governmental
actors? At what level(s) should coordination with them take place?
• What should be the approach to informing and mobilizing the public? How
to strike the balance between proper preparedness and resilience, and avoid-
ing over-securitization or panic? How should security be defined in a way
that is not itself divisive between different social groups and cultures, and
soothes rather than aggravating their self-constructed divisions? How to
should a large permanent or seasonal tourist population be dealt with?
In conclusion
No security model yet devised is without its faults, and the societal approach is
surely no exception. It is very much a child of its time, reflecting the shift from
military to other preoccupations towards the end of the twentieth century, and
the high-water-mark of social development and peace achieved in the Nordic
nations that first introduced it. It also, however, responds rationally to some
trends that are unlikely to disappear any time soon: notably the growing power
of non-state actors everywhere, for good or ill. Thus, even if a better overall
solution is found for comprehensive security in a democratic state, some
building-blocks of the societal approach are likely to survive.
We have argued that the societal approach has some features that are especially
helpful to small states, with their limited resources, sometimes atypical security
profiles and exposure to transnational trends. At the least, almost any small state
could benefit by asking itself the questions necessary to formulate and test a soci-
etal policy framework. For some governments, the extension to multiple
Societal security and small states 77
non-military dimensions of security may prove most liberating. For others, concep-
tualizing the three-way dependence between state, business and society could be
the breakthrough. For those deciding to go ahead with a full-fledged societal
approach, it must be stressed again that neither the name used nor the copying of
any particular model is crucial. Societal security should emerge from the society it
belongs to: tailor-making it to the locality means not just greater efficiency, but a
better chance of broad social acceptance and ownership.
Last and most obviously, no societal security policy can stand still and no
implementing machinery should be designed for permanence. One of the truths
behind the securitization concept is that security is what leaders and people think
it is at any given time – and there is ample room for second thoughts. A good
policy will be designed from the outset not only to allow frequent reviews, but to
use the same inclusive, cross-sectoral, transnational methods in that process as
those that underpin the strategy itself.
Notes
1 This chapter accepts the definition of small statehood proposed in Chapter 1, and
takes its test-cases from states with less than ten million inhabitants.
2 In particular, traditional military threats have receded from the Caribbean and Pacific
regions since 1945 and Western and Central Europe since 1990. Most European small
states that still feel strategically vulnerable have already gained or are seeking the
shelter of NATO and EU membership; on the more exposed cases of Moldova and
Georgia, see Chapter 9 in this volume.
3 This military/non-military distinction is particularly clear in Norway and Sweden,
where the state maintains a policy of military (‘total’) defence alongside an official
‘societal security’ doctrine covering just about everything else.
4 The related principle of Responsibility to Protect empowers international society to
intervene without the local powers’ consent in cases of extreme abuse (genocide) or
neglect of a people. A corresponding statement was adopted by the UN Summit in
September 2005 (UN 2005: para. 139).
5 This section owes much to Roe (2010).
6 Arguably, a restatement in other terms of the long-standing dilemma over ‘self-
determination’.
7 See p. 28.
8 Difficulties arising in this context are further explored in the section ‘A final critique’,
on p. 74.
9 See www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-samrisk/Home_page/1228296552859 (accessed
20 September 2012), including the text ‘Results from the programme: What we know
about societal security’. Another good source of research materials is the website
www.societalsecurity.eu/ (accessed 20 September 2012). In 2013 the Nordic states
agreed to launch a new, joint research programme to create centres of excellence on
societal security throughout the region: see www.nordforsk.org/en/programs/program-
mer/samfunnssikkerhet (accessed 20 September 2012).
10 Author’s translation from the Norwegian: ‘hendelser som truer sentrale samfunnsin-
stitusjoner, vår felles sikkerhet eller den enkeltes trygghetsfølelse’. Taken from the
official website at: www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/tema/samfunnssikkerhet-og-
beredskap.html?id=87075 (accessed 20 September 2012).
11 Author’s translation from Royal Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Police, St.
melding (state report) nr 22 2007–8, text at: www.regjeringen.no/pages/2073310/
PDFS/STM200720080022000DDDPDFS.pdf (accessed 20 September 2012), p. 6.
78 A.J.K. Bailes
12 ‘Main public sector functions’ is a standard phrase in Norwegian security planning
and refers to major utilities like energy, food and water supplies, transport and com-
munications, plus basic financial services.
13 Author’s translation, from the official website at: www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/tema/
samfunnssikkerhet-og-beredskap.html?id=87075 (accessed 25 October 2012).
14 Ibid.
15 In the Swedish and Finnish systems, control of complex emergencies would pass
directly to the Prime Ministerial level where the key resources (24/7 situation centre
etc.) are located, but this is somewhat less clear in Norway and Denmark.
16 Aside from Norway and Sweden, which expressly use the societal term (samfunns-
sikkerhet and samhallssäkerhet respectively), Finland has formulated a ‘comprehen-
sive’ approach to national security that means much the same in practice. Denmark
sets similar goals for emergency preparedness and management in a ‘robust society’,
with perhaps greater emphasis on international human threats. Iceland has a coord-
inating institution under the Ministry of Justice with the title of ‘Almannavarnir’, offi-
cially translated as civil defence or (more recently) civil protection.
17 On the significance of Article 223 and its precursors, see Rhinard and Myrdal (2010).
18 For instance, Iceland’s independent risk assessment of March 2009 cited the EU as a
key partner in numerous areas of civil security (Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2009).
19 The problem is of course aggravated when different ethnic, religious etc. groups are
clustered in the different regions.
20 This last point hardly needs to be laboured in the case of the Western Balkan small
states, Cyprus or Georgia.
21 Insights into variations and limitations of Nordic ‘societal’ practice are given in Britz
(2008). For a critical review of Icelandic internal emergency handling see Bern-
hardsdóttir and Svedin (2004).
22 A study of elite reactions to the idea of ‘societal’ security carried out in Iceland in
2008 gave some credence to all these points, but also showed what misapprehensions
and fears any new proposal could evoke in a traditionally polarized sphere. See Bailes
and Gylfason (2008).
23 A good start is made on remedying this weakness in (World Bank 2011).
24 For current information on EU policy see www.travel-voyage.consilium.europa.eu/
file.asp?thepath={5D28E317–0BC5–435A-BCA7-FAFE6CAD6A58}.pdf and http://
ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/prote/perspectives_en.htm (both accessed 25
October 2012).
25 See note 22.
Bibliography
Bailes, A.J.K. (2007) ‘A World of Risk’, in SIPRI Yearbook 2007: Armaments, Disarma-
ment and International Security, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bailes, A.J.K. and Gylfason, Th.F. (2008) ‘ “Societal Security” and Iceland’ in Stjórn-
mála og Stjórnsysla 2008/1, University of Iceland, available online at: www.
stjornmalogstjornsysla.is/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368
(accessed 20 September 2012).
Bernhardsdóttir, Á.E. and Svedin, L. (eds) (2004) Small-state Crisis Management: The
Icelandic Way, Stockholm: CRISMART (Swedish Defence College).
Boin, A., Ekengren, M., Missiroli, A., Rhinhard, M. and Sundelius, B. (2007) ‘Building
Societal Security: The EU’s Role in Managing Emergencies’, Brussels: EPC working
paper no. 27, available online at: www.epc.eu/en/pb.asp?TYP=TEWN&LV=187&see=
y&t=7&PG=TEWN/EN/detailpub&l=12&AI=846 (accessed 20 September 2012).
Societal security and small states 79
Britz, M. (2008) Lost in Translation? EU’s Solidarity Declaration in Practice: A Nordic
Perspective on Civil Protection, Acta B 37, Stockholm: Swedish National Defence
College.
Burgess, P. and Mouhleb, N. (2007) ‘Societal Security: Definitions and Scope for the
Norwegian Setting’, PRIO Policy brief, 2/2007.
Buzan, B. (1991) Peoples, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies
in the Post-Cold War Era, Boulder CO: Lynn Rienner Publishers.
Buzan, B., de Wilde, J. and Wæver, O. (1998) Security, A New Framework for Analysis,
Boulder, CO and London: Lynn Rienner Publishers.
European Union (2007) ‘Treaty of Lisbon’, available online at: http://europa.eu/lisbon_
treaty/full_text/index_en.htm (accessed 20 August 2013).
Huysmans, J. (2000) ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, Journal
of Common Market Studies, 38(5): 751–777.
Ibryamova, N. (2002) ‘Migration from Central and Eastern Europe and Societal Security
in the European Union’, University of Miami: 2002, available online at: http://aei.pitt.
edu/8088/ (accessed 15 September 2012).
Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2009) ‘Risk Assessment for Iceland’, text available
online at: www.mfa.is/news-and-publications/nr/4823 (accessed 20 September 2012).
McSweeney, B. (1996) ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’,
Review of International Studies, 22(1): 81–93.
Nord, L., Strömbäck, J., Grandien, C. and Ottestig, A.C. (2006) ‘When a Natural Disaster
Becomes a Political Crisis: A Swedish Case Study’, paper presented to the Inter-
national Communication Association at Dresden, available online at: www.allaca-
demic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/2/0/4/p92041_index.html (accessed
20 February 2013).
Norwegian Ministry of Defence (2008) Norwegian Defence 2008, available online at: www.
regjeringen.no/upload/FD/Dokumenter/Fakta2008_eng.pdf (accessed 20 September
2012).
Rhinard, M. and Myrdal, S. (2010) ‘The European Union’s Solidarity Clause: Empty Letter
or Effective Tool?’, Swedish Institute of International Affairs occasional paper no. 2,
available online at: www.ui.se/news.aspx?r_id=24311 (accessed 20 September 2012).
Roe, P. (2010) ‘Societal Security’, in Collins, A. (ed.) Contemporary Security Studies
(2nd edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sundelius, B. (2005) ‘A Brief on Embedded Societal Security’, Information & Security,
17: 23–37.
United Nations (2005) ‘Summit Outcome’ (of the 60th anniversary UN Summit), avail-
able online at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/487/60/PDF/
N0548760.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 20 September 2012).
United Nations Development Programme (1994) ‘Human Development Report 1994:
New Dimensions of Human Security’, available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/
reports/global/hdr1994/ (accessed 20 September 2012).
Wæver, O. (1993) Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, London:
Pinter.
World Bank (2011) ‘World Development Report, Conflict, Security and Development’,
available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/WDR2011_
Full_Text.pdf (accessed 29 August 2013).
5 Environmental security and small
states
Auður H. Ingólfsdóttir
Introduction
Without nature humans would not exist. The natural world is not only a provider
of food, water, energy and other necessities vital for our survival, but also a
place where we seek joy and inspiration. All human communities are shaped by
their natural environment and rely on natural resources in order to flourish. The
nurturing element of nature, however, only tells part of the story. The environ-
ment is also a source of multiple threats that can endanger the security of indi-
viduals and communities. In some instances, environmental hazards can also
threaten the national security of states or even global security. While certain
environmental hazards, like natural disasters, have always existed, the ways
humans have over-exploited resources and polluted the environment in modern
times have created new threats. In other words, man-made environmental
degradation is causing multiple security threats that call for our attention.
The topic of this chapter is environmental security and it focuses on why this
type of security should be of any relevance for small states. After discussing the
different understandings of environmental security, the link to small states will
be established and the importance of this particular dimension of security for
them will be explored. Finally, the opportunities small states have to influence
discourses on security and the environment at the international level will be dis-
cussed. A key argument presented in the chapter is that although small states are
vulnerable to environmental threats, especially when such threats originate
outside their borders, they also have opportunities to influence policy at the inter-
national level by acting as ‘norm entrepreneurs’.1 The power to shape norms,
however, will be weakened if domestic policies are in conflict with the ideals
that small states are advocating in international forums.
The theoretical underpinning of this argument is drawn from social construc-
tivism. Constructivists emphasize the social dimensions of international rela-
tions, including the importance of norms, rules and language, and the possibility
of change. Unlike the neo-realists and neo-liberalists, whose main focus is on
structure, constructivists believe that although states are influenced by structure,
they also have agency and can facilitate changes through a process of interaction
with other states (Fierke 2010: 179–180).
Environmental security and small states 81
Throughout the chapter, climate change will be used as an example of an
environmental issue that threatens security. Climate change serves as an interest-
ing case since it is a truly global issue that demands the cooperation of all states.
No single state, large or small, can tackle problems related to climate change
with domestic policies alone, since the threat originates both outside and inside
the borders of each state.
The concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as
security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national
interest in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of a nuclear
holocaust. It has been related more to nation-states than to people.
(United Nations Development Programme 1994: 22)
The report then goes on to discuss a long list of threats to human security and
groups them into the seven following categories: Economic security, food
security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community
security and political security.
Environmental security and small states 83
An important feature of the human security approach is the possibility for
analysing security threats as they apply to different groups in society, rather than
only focusing on the state as the unit of analysis. In this context, identifying vul-
nerable groups might be more important than looking at environmental security
through the lens of state security, regardless of whether the states are small or
large. That said, there are still some issues that require the cooperation of states.
This applies in particular to environmental issues that are global in scope, such
as climate change.
As an environmental problem, climate change is on a different scale from
anything else the international system has previously encountered. Increasing
temperatures will not only drastically alter natural environments, but can also
lead to huge changes in living conditions for humans (Vogler 2008). These
changes will provide a number of new security challenges, some of which can
only be dealt with at the international level. Examples of new security challenges
include the increasing risks of coastal erosion and more frequent floods in low
lying coastal areas (due to rising sea levels), an increase in the number and
intensity of extreme weather events, and the risk that millions of people will be
exposed to increased stress from water shortage in the future (International Panel
on Climate Change 2007: 48).
In this light, it should not come as a surprise that the debate on environmental
security has been revitalized in recent years due to the increasing spotlight on
climate change as a security issue. In the 1990s, climate change was discussed as
part of the environmental security discourse, but by the beginning of the twenty-
first century it had emerged as a separate issue. It was quickly connected to
human security, although the possibility of linking climate change with future
conflict causation was also raised (Haldén 2011: 410).
The publication, in 2007, of the fourth assessment report of the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (International Panel on Climate Change
2007) brought a turning point in the securitization of climate change. The report
repeated the earlier message about human-induced climate change, but with
much more scientific certainty than before. Also in 2007, Al Gore and the IPCC
received the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in drawing attention to the danger
of climate change, and in April that year the UN Security Council held its first
debate on climate change and global security. Although predictions about
climate change causing future conflicts were prominent, especially in the media,
an analysis of these developments by Detraz and Betsill (2009) indicates that in
international forums the main focus has been on the environmental security dis-
course, rather than the environmental conflict discourse. Their research is based
on reviewing a number of UNFCCC3-related documents as well as the debate in
the Security Council. Using content and discourse analysis, they demonstrate
that both the historical climate change debate and the Security Council debate of
2007 were drawing from the environmental security discourse, rather than focus-
ing on the linkages between environment and conflict.
Whether the focus is on environmental conflict related to climate change, or the
broader environmental security discourse, it is clear that security threats caused by
84 A.H. Ingólfsdóttir
climate change are on the agenda in international forums today. As already argued,
climate change cannot be addressed by one state alone. It calls for cooperation, not
only between states, but also between states and non-state actors, such as multi-
national corporations and international environmental NGOs.
Furthermore, climate change cannot be dealt with in isolation from other issues.
Other types of environmental threats also demand attention, e.g. pollution, soil
erosion and over-exploitation of renewable resources. While climate change might
intensify problems related to those threats, preventing or minimizing it will not
necessarily address the root causes of those particular problems. Additionally,
threats related to climate change must be weighed against other types of security
issues and the links between the different types of security threats must be kept in
mind. For example, in some cases climate change could add to economic insecurity
but, on other occasions, efforts to mitigate climate change might be more of a
threat to economic security than climate change itself.
To sum up, climate change provides the international community with a huge
task: it must simultaneously find ways to reduce climate-related security threats,
and coordinate those efforts with other pressing security issues also calling for
attention. International agreements will clearly play an important role in this
task. In spite of the importance of other actors, states still play a key role in
negotiating binding international agreements that provide the basis for establish-
ing new norms and defining legitimate behaviour. In this context, the relative
size of a state matters. For example, large states have more power to influence
the overall global greenhouse gas emissions through direct action, either by
cutting emissions domestically, or using their economic power to put pressure on
other states to cut their emissions. This does not mean that small states are com-
pletely powerless; but they might need to be more creative in their diplomacy to
have any real impact on the climate debate and large state behaviour. This
thought leads us into the next section, where the relevance of environmental
security for small states will be discussed.
As can be seen from this list, regions at special risk include states of all shapes
and sizes. Barnett has summarized the situation by stating that: ‘Climate change
is a security issue for some nation-states, communities and individuals’ (Barnett
2001b: 2). Among those especially vulnerable, he mentions small island states
(threatened by sea level rise), Inuit communities in the Arctic (threatened by
thinner ice and less predictable snow cover), people living in the deltas of Bang-
ladesh (where floods will be more common) and communities in the highlands
of Papua New Guinea (increasingly prone to diseases spread by mosquitos)
(Barnett 2001b: 2).
Climate change does not only pose threats to individual regions of the world
but can also threaten international security. One example would be when climate
change triggers or intensifies migration within and between countries; another
would be if climate change leads to a growing international distributional con-
flict between the main drivers of climate change (industrialized countries) and
those most affected (developing countries). If climate change exceeds the
adaptation capacity of many states, this could also increase the number of weak
and fragile states, which can threaten stability in the world (German Advisory
Council on Global Change 2007).
There are two key methods to minimize threats presented by climate change:
mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation aims at preventing or limiting change and
involves implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation
refers to initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and
human systems to climate changes that are already happening or are expected to
86 A.H. Ingólfsdóttir
happen. Earlier efforts focused almost exclusively on mitigation, but as time has
passed and attempts to reduce overall global emissions have failed, the need to
focus on adaptation has increased. As stated earlier, weak and fragile states –
located in geographical areas that will be hit hard by climate change – are the
most vulnerable, and will have the hardest time adapting to the changes. Many
of those countries, especially the smaller ones, have also contributed little to
overall greenhouse gas emissions, and thus are unable to offer their help by
taking relevant mitigation measures domestically. Small island developing states
are a good example. Their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is
minimal but they may experience the most serious impact, and some even face
the threat of going completely under water. This leaves these states in the vul-
nerable position of having a vital stake in the international effort to combat
climate change and enhance climate security, but without the means to con-
tribute significantly to mitigation or adaptation measures (Betzold 2010: 131).
Smaller states in Northern Europe are in a different position. Most of them
have the resources to defend their population against moderate climate changes
through adaptation. In some cases, the changes might even bring new economic
opportunities, especially for those located in the Arctic. The melting of the
Arctic ice cap will increase accessibility to the region, which will bring both new
opportunities and risks. New opportunities could include more shipping (both
from transport and tourism), oil and gas development and the opening up of new
fishing grounds. A warmer climate might also benefit agriculture in certain
Arctic regions. A recent report by the Nordic Council of Ministers lists
‘Increased accessibility that will provide opportunities as well as new risks’, as
one of nine mega-trends currently characterizing the Arctic (Nordic Council of
Ministers 2011: 13). The small state of Iceland, with a population of only
300,000 people, can be taken as an example. Planning authorities have already
adopted policies aimed at taking future climate changes into account. Since
1992, harbours have been designed with rising sea levels in mind and the
National Power Company (Landvirkjun) has done some work on estimating the
influence that warmer temperatures will have on renewable energy sources,
especially hydropower (Ministry for the Environment 2010: 78).
If climate impacts become even more dramatic, however, the adaptation capa-
city of even the more favourably placed states might be exceeded. Thus, mitiga-
tion is a vital component of enhancing climate security in the long run. When it
comes to mitigation, however, small states have very little direct power to influ-
ence overall global emissions. Going back to the case of Iceland, greenhouse gas
emissions from Iceland are only a tiny fraction of global emissions. Even if
emissions there could be cut down to zero, this would not make a noticeable dent
in the overall output. This fact creates a great temptation for small states to act as
‘free riders’ when it comes to contributing towards solving the climate crisis.
This is exactly what Iceland did during the negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol,
where the Icelandic negotiating team managed to get a special exemption from
greenhouse gas emission limits for Iceland’s new large-scale industries using
renewable energy.4 This negotiating tactic was, in turn, driven by special
Environmental security and small states 87
interests, leaving little room for Iceland to contribute to the discussion on how to
reduce global emissions, even though this was a common interest for all states
(Ingólfsdóttir 2008).
Another, more recent example of a small actor flirting with the free rider
approach is provided by Greenland.5 Greenland is frequently taken as an
example of a place where the impacts of climate change are particularly severe.
Prior to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, Denmark used Greenland as a
meeting site for high-level policy makers, so they could observe the effects of
climate change at first hand (Degeorges 2010: 3). Today, however, with increas-
ingly easy access to resources in the Arctic, foreign investors are standing in line
for oil and gas explorations off the coast of Greenland and for mapping out sites
for potential mineral mining on land (Rosenthal 2012). In sum, the impact of
climate change is creating new economic opportunities, but taking advantage of
those opportunities means a large increase in emissions from this region, further
adding to the climate problem.
A closer look reveals that the tension between trying to implement an ambi-
tious climate policy and the pressure to continue with economic development,
often leading to an increase in emissions, can be found in most places that have
committed to the task of keeping greenhouse gas emissions in check. Norway,
another small state in Northern Europe, is yet another example. The Norwegian
government has announced its ambition to become ‘carbon neutral’ by 2030. At
the same time, there are plans to start offshore oil and gas activities in new loca-
tions, just south of the Barents Sea. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Jonas Gahr Støre, addressed this dilemma in a speech to the Norwegian Parlia-
ment in 2008: ‘Norway has to find a balance between the superior climate target
and safeguarding Norwegian interests in the north’, he said (quoted in Kristof-
fersen and Young 2009: 577).
This issue can also serve as an example of how tension can arise between the
demands of different security dimensions. Economic, financial and societal
security at home is likely to have more weight in domestic policy making than
concern for global environmental security.
Given the small impact that any reduction in emissions from small states can
have on global emissions, it is understandable that economic interests tend to be
prioritized over an ambitious climate mitigation policy. This approach, however,
could weaken the power of small states to act as norm entrepreneurs in inter-
national forums, which is generally their best opportunity to influence the beha-
viour of larger states. The role of a norm entrepreneur is a challenging one,
because it requires a long-term vision and the willingness to take a higher moral
ground, advocating policies that aim at supporting the common interests of all
states rather than the special interests of a few.
Conclusion
Human-induced environmental degradation is a growing problem that threatens
both the human security of individuals and groups and the national security of
selected states. Additionally, some environmental issues are global in scope, and
have the potential to threaten international security as well. Climate change is
one such example begging for the attention of the international community.
Smallness is not the only factor of relevance when evaluating the environ-
mental security of states. Geography, standard of living and human capital are,
in some cases, more relevant factors. When it comes to global problems like
climate change, however, small states are more vulnerable than large ones in the
sense that they have less power to take direct action that will have any real
impact on mitigating climate change. Their smallness also limits their options
for effective adaptation and if the latter fails, they are liable to become an early
source of climate-driven migration.
Although small states are unable to use their military or economic power to
change the behaviour of large states, they have the opportunity to influence inter-
national discourses and act as norm entrepreneurs. In the long run, this will help
enhance their environmental security. The role of a norm entrepreneur, however,
requires a clear vision and a long-term commitment. It calls on states to focus on
common global interests and to provide leadership in implementing progressive
Environmental security and small states 91
domestic policies. The Nordic states have often acted as norm entrepreneurs in
environmental policy, both internationally and within the EU. They are viewed
by many as leaders in the climate policy field as well, but domestic economic
policies in conflict with their climate goals might weaken their power to act as
inspiration for other states.
Notes
1 The term ‘norm entrepreneur’ is borrowed from Christine Ingebritsen who has written
much about the role of the Nordic countries in world politics (Ingebritsen 2002, 2006).
2 See Chapter 2 in this book.
3 UNFCCC stands for the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change.
Among the documents reviewed were summaries from COP (Conference of the
Parties) meetings that are held every year.
4 The agreement about this exemption was reached at COP 7, and is listed as Decision
14/CP.7. The decision is only relevant for small economies, emitting less than 0.05 per
cent of the total Annex I carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. What this means in prac-
tical terms is that Iceland is the only state that benefits from the exemption.
5 Greenland is a self-ruled territory that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. With only
57,000 inhabitants it can definitely be considered small (although it is not yet an inde-
pendent state).
6 See Chapter 6 in this book.
7 Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Prime Minister of Norway, led the work of the
World Commission on Environment and Development that authored the famous report
‘Our Common Future’ (1987), where the idea of sustainable development was
presented.
Bibliography
Barnett, J. (2001a) The Meaning of Environmental Security, London: Zed Books.
Barnett, J. (2001b) ‘Security and Climate Change’, working paper no. 7, Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research.
Betzold, C. (2010) ‘Borrowing Power to Influence International Negotiations: AOSIS in
the Climate Change Regime, 1990–1997’, Politics, 30(3): 131–148.
Degeorges, D. (2010) ‘Greenland’s State-building in a Changing Arctic: Climate, Energy
and Geopolitics’ – Our Ice Dependent World, conference proceedings from the Sixth
Open Assembly of the Northern Research Forum. Akureyri: Northern Research Forum,
available online at www.nrf.is/images/stories/Damien_Deogeorges_final.pdf (accessed
29 November 2013).
Detraz, N. and Betsill, M.M. (2009) ‘Climate Change and Environmental Security: For
Whom the Discourse Shifts’, International Studies Perspectives, 10: 303–330.
Deudney, D. (1990) ‘The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National
Security’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19(3): 461–476.
Fierke, K.M. (2010) ‘Constructivism’, in Dunne, T., Kurki, D. and Smith, S. (eds) Inter-
national Relations Theories. Discipline and Diversity (2nd edition) New York: Oxford
University Press.
German Advisory Council on Global Change (2008) Climate Change as a Security Risk,
London and Sterling: Earth Scan.
Haldén, P. (2011) ‘The Past, Present and Future(s) of Environmental Security Studies’,
Cooperation and Conflict, 46(3): 406–414.
92 A.H. Ingólfsdóttir
Ingebritsen, C. (2002) ‘Norm Entreprenaurs: Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics’,
Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1): 11–23.
Ingebritsen, C. (2006) Scandinavia in World Politics, New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Ingólfsdóttir, A.H. (2008) ‘Umhverfismál og utanríkisstefna: Stefna Íslands í samningum
um loftslagsbreytingar’ [Environmental Issues and Foreign Policy: Iceland’s Strategy in
Negotiations about Climate Treaties] in Ingimundarson, V. (ed.) Uppbrot hugmynda-
kerfis. Endurmótun íslenskrar utanríkisstefnu 1991–2007 [a book about Icelandic foreign
policy after the cold war] Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, pp. 253–278.
International Energy Agency (2012) ‘Nordic Energy Technology Perspective. At a
glance’, available online at: www.iea.org/etp/nordic/ (accessed 25 November 2013).
International Panel on Climate Change (2007) ‘Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report’,
Geneva: IPCC. Available online at: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_
syr.pdf (accessed 29 November).
Kronsell, A. (2002) ‘Can Small States Influence EU Norms? Insights From Sweden´s
Participation in the Field of Environmental Politics’, Scandinavian Studies, 74(3):
287–304.
Kristoffersen, B. and Young, S. (2010) ‘Geographies of Security and Statehood in Nor-
way’s “Battle of the North” ’, Geoforum, 41: 577–584.
Mathew, J.T. (1989) ‘Redefining Security’, Foreign Affairs, 68(2):162–177.
Ministry for the Environment (2010) ‘Iceland’s Fifth National Communication on
Climate Change Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change’, Reykjavík: Icelandic Ministry for the Environment.
Nordic Council of Ministers (2011) Megatrends, Nordic council of Ministers, Copen-
hagen: ThemaNord, p. 525.
Nordic Energy Research (2012) ‘Nordic Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Targets’, avail-
able online at: www.nordicenergy.org/thenordicway/topic/policies/ (accessed 30
October 2012).
Neumann, I.B and Gstöhl, S. (2004) ‘Lilliputians in Gulliver´s World? Small States in
International Relations’, working paper, Reykjavík: Centre for Small State Studies,
University of Iceland.
Rosenthal, E. (2012) ‘Race is on as Ice Melt Reveals Arctic Treasures’, The New York
Times, 12 September 2012, available onlinat at: www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/science/
earth/arctic-resources-exposed-by-warming-set-off-competition.html?pagewanted=al
(accessed 30 October 2012).
Salehyan, I. (2008) ‘Climate Change and Conflict’, Journal of Peace Research, 45(3):
315–326.
Vogler, J. (2008) ‘Environmental Issues’, Chapter 20 in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens,
P. (eds) The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Rela-
tions, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 350–366.
United Nations Development Programme (1994) Human Development Report 1994,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Part II
Small state security in
Europe
This page intentionally left blank
6 The Nordic states and security
Clive Archer
Introduction
Since the end of the Cold War, the five Nordic states have reacted to their new
security environment in ways that demonstrate an awareness of the opportunities
provided for small states. They have also tried to adapt to new circumstances by
showing the strengths and weaknesses of small states of varying sizes in differ-
ing contexts.
The five Nordic states – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden –
are often placed together in international relations and frequently consider them-
selves as a Nordic group with much in common. However, their closeness in
areas such as culture, social welfare, justice and even economic matters has not
been matched by a common approach to security policy, or indeed in their land
size and population size (see Table 6.1).
The disappearance of the Cold War ended many outside restraints on the
security of the Nordic region and also brought in new security concepts, many of
which have been embraced by Nordic security decision-makers. Furthermore,
Notes
Area and population statistics from The Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, at www.
cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/wfbExt/region_eur.html (accessed 4 August 2012);
population figures for 2013, area for Denmark excludes Greenland and Faroes.
Defence expenditure and troop statistics from IISS (2009); manpower – army, navy and air force,
plus central support in Norway and joint force personnel (including civilians) in Denmark.
PfP: Partnership for Peace agreement with NATO.
EEA: European Economic Area agreement with the EU.
96 C. Archer
the five states made an effort in the Stoltenberg Report (Stoltenberg 2009) to find
the basis for common action on security matters. This combination of closeness
and divisions in security matters makes the responses of the five Nordic states
interesting in terms of defence and security analysis in the post-Cold War
period.
The background
Some elements of history already distinguish certain Nordic states from others.
They may all now be regarded as ‘small states’: but Denmark and, especially,
Sweden were great powers in their time that became ‘small’ – in the sense of
this volume – over the years. Norway, Finland and Iceland were born as small
states in the twentieth century, thus having their expectations already trimmed.
After World War II, in the 1948 attempt to establish a Nordic Defence Union,
Denmark, Norway and Sweden agreed on a high level of defence cooperation;
but negotiations broke down because Denmark and Norway wished to sign the
North Atlantic Treaty and Sweden did not. Indeed, military cooperation based
on these talks continued between the three states, often on a secret basis, well
into the Cold War.
NATO membership meant that Denmark, Norway and Iceland – especially the
first two – had increasingly close cooperation within NATO’s command structures.
Nevertheless the defence and security orientations of the three states were some-
what different. Denmark looked to NATO’s central front, but had residual interests
in the Atlantic through the defence of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Norway’s
concerns were increasingly with the Kola Peninsula (where forces of the neigh-
bouring Soviet Union were massed) and the North Atlantic; while Iceland’s rela-
tions were mainly with the US, its defence protector.
The Cold War implanted deep defence and security differences between the
Nordic states, based on their strategic positions and alliance choices. Denmark
and Norway had decided to balance against the Soviet Union, rather than
bandwaggon with it – which was broadly the choice that Finland felt it had to
make. Iceland bandwaggoned with the US and Sweden found its own way of
balancing against the perceived power of the Soviet Union. However, the Nordic
governments chose to maintain a certain internal dynamic in the security field
that helped shape the Nordic region overall as ‘a low-tension area’, where the
Nordic states ‘chose to take into account the position and interests of their neigh-
bours when making decisions about security.’ This was less ‘the product of
deliberate design but rather the aggregated result of incremental decisions and
adjustment’ (Holst 1990: 8). The result was sometimes characterized as the
‘Nordic balance’.
During the Cold War, the Nordic governments saw the concept of security in
wide terms. The notion of ‘total defence’ was accepted, whereby society was pre-
pared to defend the state against attack by utilizing economic and social resources.
Similar ideas were seen in ‘civil defence’ in other states (such as the US and UK),
but the small homogenous Nordic countries were able to implement them more
The Nordic states and security 97
easily. In the Nordic states, security policy meant defence policy plus diplomacy,
economic policy and social policy.
The five Nordic states had the advantage of being a security community as
they conducted their mutual relations without expecting the use of force and
intra-Nordic policies were conducted almost as if they were domestic policies.
This meant that, in dealing with wider aspects of East–West relations (e.g. disar-
mament), North–South relations in the UN and international peacekeeping, the
Nordic states stressed non-zero-sum solutions and the wider acceptance of law-
based norms in international relations.
The diversification of the five Nordic states’ core security policies accord-
ing to the demands of the Cold War partly continued the domination of those
policies by Great Power considerations seen before 1945. Nevertheless, there
was some commonality within Nordic security policy and culture, and where
the governments could act together – for example in training for peacekeeping
– they did.
Sweden
Sweden has seen a considerable change in its strategic position since 1989, and a
variety of governments have altered its defence posture and policy away from its
previous position of being well armed and free from peacetime alliances. For
Sweden, EU membership was a response to the Swedish economic model falter-
ing in the early 1990s. Nevertheless, the country responded to the ESDP’s evolu-
tion and Balkan events in the 1990s by Europeanizing its security policy. It
became engaged in peace operations in the former Yugoslavia and was closely
associated with NATO’s Partnership for Peace. Sweden accepted a broad
100 C. Archer
security concept – familiar from its Cold War practice – widening it to include
terrorism, natural disasters and links to development and human rights (Regerin-
gen 2007: 1).
After 1991, in military defence, Sweden concluded that threats to its territory
had broadly disappeared, and during the 2000s the basis of Swedish security
shifted from territorial defence to international crisis management (Regeringen
2004: 6–7, 13–14). However, after the Russo-Georgian War of 2008, a slight
move back to territorial defence was made.
The longer-term trend suggests a physical widening of Sweden’s security
scope to encompass possible regional and global adverse affects on Sweden’s
security. Sweden always considered world security to be indivisible – thus its
participation in UN operations – but after the Cold War, its military posture
became more specifically aimed at responding to outside threats. This repres-
ented a ‘first-order change’ from deterrence by denial (attacking Sweden being
made not worth the cost) to active defence of Swedish interests by international
crisis management, with the first line of defence being abroad (Wedin 2008: 53).
Close to home, Sweden agreed not to be passive if other Nordic or EU states
were attacked, accepting that it should ‘have the capability to provide and
receive military support’ (Regeringskansliet 2011).
These policy developments were reflected in the provision for Sweden’s
armed forces: they were cut from 600,000 by 1999 (IISS 1999: 98–99) to 91,000
in 2009 (Försvarsmakten 2010: 11–13). Furthermore, male conscription was
replaced in 2010 by contracted personnel. The 2008 Russo-Georgian War led the
government to adjust the required mobilization time for most of the armed forces
from a year to a week; the defence minister also proposed to end the distinction
between Sweden’s national effort and its international duties, and placed an
emphasis on the ability to act – individually or with others – in response to
threats in the region ‘at short notice’ (Regeringskansliet 2009).
Sweden also developed its capabilities in the soft security area. Together with
Finland, Sweden pressed for the Petersberg tasks – with their emphasis on soft
security – to be the basis for the ESDP, and led in proposing the development of
EU civil intervention capabilities. Again, the Asian tsunami in 2004 was a key
moment for Sweden, but the country’s response was seen as wanting (T. Archer
2011: 187). Since then, Swedish civil preparedness has been improved with the
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), with 850 staff, coordinating Swe-
den’s response and cooperating with the EU. This covers all forms of emergen-
cies (Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency 2009).
In 2010, the government recommended a comprehensive approach to crisis
management. Defence and societal crisis preparedness were later given a
common budget line, leading to crisis management becoming more integrated
with the defence structure. The MSB now ‘holds the mandate for a holistic and
all hazards approach to emergency management . . . from everyday accidents up
to major disasters’ (Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency 2009).
The military and civilians work closely in dealing with a variety of events:
the spring floods in Sweden in 2010, the cyber-attack against official sites in
The Nordic states and security 101
Estonia in April 2007, the oil clean-up in the Baltic in May 2003, mass vaccina-
tion against swine influenza in April 2008, help to Haiti after an earthquake and
evacuation of Swedes from the Lebanon in July 2006 (Försvarsdepartementet
2010). These scenarios would all come under category ‘D’, (‘Accidents and
Natural Hazards’), in Table 2.1 modelling a typical small-state agenda in Chapter
2 of this book (p. 31), with a touch of categories ‘B’ (‘Non-state Violence –
Cyber-attacks’) and ‘C’ (‘Economic Security’, albeit abroad). The authorities
also work together with civil society (with a section headed ‘All Responsible’),
NGOs such as the Red Cross and Save the Children, as well as with international
authorities such as the Nordic ‘Haga’ cooperation group (see p. 106), the EU and
the UN. All this demonstrates a Swedish commitment to the comprehensive
model of security.
Norway
Norway proceeded with caution after the Cold War, as it still had a sizeable –
and unpredictable – nuclear power on its northern doorstep.
Norway was already locked into NATO, and subsequent Norwegian govern-
ments have aimed at enhancing this link in order to keep the US and/or major
EU powers by its side. The worst danger was neglect by both, and throughout
the 1990s Norway sought to prevent this marginalization. First, its multilateral-
ism aimed at enveloping itself in regional cooperative institutions to counter
international anarchy and stabilize northern Europe. Second, it became more
involved in ESDP, though it was not an EU member. Norway offered personnel
to serve in ESDP operations, hoping to raise its status amongst EU states – what
Græger called ‘troops for influence’ (2002: 35) – and ensure promises of rein-
forcement for Norway. However, the expected influence did not arrive and,
anyhow, Norwegian troops available for peacekeeping were used in UN, OSCE
and NATO operations, with few being left for ESDP actions.
By the mid-2000s, Norwegian armed forces were more flexible. The Tele-
mark battalion contributed to ISAF in Afghanistan where, for the first time since
1945, Norwegian aircraft were used to attack enemy positions. Norwegian forces
contributed to the NATO standing maritime force in the Mediterranean and to
NATO’s Kosovo operation. Norwegian aircraft were some of the first to bomb
positions of Gaddafi’s forces in Libya in 2011.
After the Russian-Georgian War, Norway re-emphasized that ‘NATO’s role
as the primary guarantor for the security of its members, embodied in Article V,
collective defence and security consultations, should continue to be the bedrock
of alliance activity’ (Barth Eide 2009). Norway saw the NATO strategy adopted
at the November 2010 Lisbon Summit as showing the Allies’ continued interest
in areas such as the High North (Faremo 2010), despite further substantial with-
drawal of US troops from Europe. Indeed, this led to a closer Norwegian military
relationship with its old ally, the United Kingdom.
As well as widening its security horizon since 1989 – while keeping one eye
firmly on the High North – Norway has also expanded its official understanding
102 C. Archer
of security. The Norwegian Defence Minister noted in 2000 that ‘Society at large
has also become more vulnerable’ with increased vulnerability to sabotage being
of importance for an oil and gas producer such as Norway (Løwer 2000: 2). By
2008, this had become a wider range of societal threats requiring the kinds of
responses identified by Alyson Bailes in Chapter 4. More recently, both the Nor-
wegian Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice and Police have adopted
a wide definition of societal security. The bombing of central Oslo and shooting
of civilians on 22 July 2011, by one person, caused the Norwegian government
to re-examine both the governmental and societal response to those events; this
has both strengthened the agents of government dealing with crises, and
entrenched their place in society.
All this has meant that Norway has an extensive range of security commit-
ments for a small state. Its oil and gas wealth has necessitated some of those, but
has also provided greater resources to help respond to them. However, it is
notable that Norway still pursues alliance strategies to bring military security to
its shores, and its diplomacy is clearly based on a view of international relations
whereby any strengthening of international norms and institutions benefits relat-
ively less powerful states such as Norway. These two tracks – one more Realist,
the other more Liberal Institutionalist – are woven into Norway’s security now,
as they were before.
Denmark
Denmark was the Nordic country that benefited most from the strategic changes
after the Cold War, and policies since adopted have shown a willingness to re-
think the country’s security policy, though still within the context of the Atlantic
Alliance. Its post-Cold War security policy thus reflects not just international
developments but also the debate within Denmark.
Even before the end of the Cold War, the Danish Foriegn Minister and leader
of the key Social Liberal party agreed the broad outlines of a post-Cold War
Danish foreign and security policy that brought to an end the period of Denmark
being a ‘footnote country’ in NATO.2 By early 1992, Denmark was no longer
faced with the prospect of a massive attack; the main threats to European
security were seen as arms proliferation, Islamic fundamentalism, the population
explosion, wealth differences between North and South, the pressure of immi-
gration and environmental threats. Security policy was ‘more widely defined’,
with economic aspects, among others, playing a greater role (Rapport . . . 1992:
27, 32–33, author’s translation).
Danish decision-makers sought a more ambitious security policy than the
mostly responsive attitudes of the Cold War. This new policy of ‘active interna-
tionalism’ was ‘a fundamental break with the past and with traditional Danish
foreign policy [which was] to be less conditioned by geopolitical realities and
more focussed on actively contributing to the creation of new rules of co-
operation and co-existence’. The Foriegn Minister, Niels Helveg Petersen, said
that Denmark had grown out of its small state role and was in the lead in areas
The Nordic states and security 103
such as peacekeeping and aid policy (Holm 2002: 21). Indeed, it was in the latter
area vis-à-vis the Baltic States, that Denmark was most proactive in the 1990s,
providing materiel assistance to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and promoting
their quest for NATO and EU membership. Activist Baltic policies led Denmark
to see itself as ‘a pioneer state’ in East and Central Europe (Archer 1999: 49–52,
64–65).
With Denmark opting out of the defence aspects of the EU’s Common
Security and Defence Policy,3 its security policy was NATO-oriented. Early in
the 1990s, Denmark restructured its armed forces by organizing an international
brigade, and supported NATO’s reaction forces and multinational divisions. It
was active in the Balkans in peace operations (Rynning 2003: 27). However, the
Danish response to 9/11 was of a different order – for the first time, Denmark
was prepared to send its troops ‘out of area’ to fight for a cause, first in Afghan-
istan and then in Iraq. The new foreign policy doctrine of the centre-right gov-
ernment in November 2002 talked about full engagement in institutions such as
NATO and the EU, activism and a proactive search for partners, promotion of
the rule of international law and niche activities that allow a small country to
make a difference (cited in Rynning 2003: 29–30). The Danish Prime Minister,
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, clearly closing the chapter of Denmark’s footnote
policy, stated in 2003 that ‘my Government wishes to depart from this tradition
of reluctance. We feel we have a role to play and we wish to play it’ (Rasmussen
2003: 198). The view was that, after 9/11, ‘Denmark had direct enemies and
needed to deploy and use military force to defeat them’ (Ringsmose and Rynning
2008: 55). According to the multi-party 2004 defence agreement, Danish forces
would focus on ‘high-intensity operations’, fighting wars rather than peacekeep-
ing, and would be rapidly deployable. Conscription was to be phased out (Ras-
mussen 2005: 46). This line was followed by the centre-left government that
came into power in 2011 and sent soldiers to Senegal and Mali to ‘stand for
international law and order as opposed to the anarchy of militant Islam’
(Hækkerup 2013: 8).
Danish politicians embraced wide definitions of security after the Cold War.
The Foreign Minister, Niels Helveg Petersen (1997: 273), differentiated between
hard security – ‘mainly the territorial defence against an outside aggressor’ – and
soft security, which encompassed the non-military, civic aspects of security,
though he noted that soft security instruments were more effective when under-
pinned by a hard security framework (ibid.: 277). Denmark has developed a
crisis management capability whereby the Danish Emergency Management
Agency (DEMA) coordinates action. In a crisis abroad, the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, together with DEMA and the Ministry of Defence – which together
make up Denmark’s international alarm centre – decide on responses to requests
for assistance (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark 2010: 13).
Nationally, legislation was introduced after the Asian tsunami to bring the fire
and rescue authorities under the Ministry of Defence acting through DEMA
(Danish Emergency Management Agency 2011a). National incidents that cannot
be dealt with regionally are the concern of the National Operative staff (NOST),
104 C. Archer
chaired by the National Danish Police. Incidents of political importance can be
dealt with by one or more of three organizations: the Government Security Com-
mittee, consisting of the Prime Minister and key ministers; the Senior Officials
Security Committee, with the permanent secretaries of those ministries and the
heads of the Defence Intelligence Service and the Security Intelligence Service;
and the Crisis Management Group, made up of the under-secretaries of the above
authorities together with the Defence Command Denmark, the National Danish
Police and DEMA (Danish Emergency Management Agency 2011b). Among
the tasks listed for the armed forces are civilian ones such as maritime and
environmental surveillance, the fight against pollution, fisheries inspection,
rescue services, ice-breaking and participation in emergency preparation (Fors-
varet 2012).
Denmark’s active security policy has shown that a small state can make a dif-
ference, especially within an alliance, but has also demonstrated the political and
economic constraints on such extrovert policies.
Iceland
Iceland’s security has developed in two stages since 1989: first, following the
downfall of the Soviet Union, and then when US forces left Iceland in 2006. A
new set of parallel uncertainties came with the economic downturn of 2008,
which left Iceland particularly exposed.
In the immediate post-Cold War period, Iceland’s main security task became
the defence and control of Icelandic airspace – previously undertaken by the US
– after the US military left the Keflavik air base in 2006. Other NATO states,
such as Norway and France, have provided air patrols and ship visits on a rota
basis, but this provides neither the size nor the consistency of the previous US
force. An Icelandic Defence Agency established in 2008, took over some
defence and security tasks; it operated Iceland’s air defence system, prepared
defence exercises, supervised host nation support and represented Iceland in
NATO defence meetings. However, it was disbanded by 2010 with its activities
being divided mainly between the Foreign Ministry, the Icelandic Coastguard
and the Ministry of the Interior (Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Iceland) 2010).
Another issue was how Iceland might contribute to non-military aspects of
international peace operations. From 1994, Iceland provided civilian personnel
to UN operations in the Balkans and, in September 2001, established an Icelan-
dic Crisis Response Unit (ICRU) consisting mainly of police, medical staff,
lawyers and air traffic controllers. The latter deployed to Priština airport under
NATO supervision from 2002 to 2004 and to Kabul International Airport until
2005. ICRU members were also engaged in missions in Iraq, Morocco, Turkey,
Sri Lanka, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Algeria. Iceland worked mainly
through NATO, the EU, the UN and the OSCE (Bailes and Thorhallsson 2006:
331–340).
The work of ICRU became controversial within Iceland, as some regarded it
as becoming militarized (ibid.: 337). By 2009, a commission had undertaken a
The Nordic states and security 105
risk assessment for Iceland after the departure of the US forces. It took ‘a broad
and inclusive definition of security, encompassing “new threats” posed by
global/transnational, societal, and human factors’ (Ministry for Foreign Affairs
(Iceland) 2009: 1). It concentrated on three categories: national security and
state-centred threats, societal and civil security threats that target ‘social groups,
identities, values and civil infrastructure’ and ‘globally-induced risks to individ-
uals and society by transnational factors such as environmental disasters, pan-
demics, climate change, terrorism, human trafficking, and weapons of mass
destruction’ (ibid.: 1–2). Reporting after the full impact of the 2008 economic
crash on Icelandic banks and society, the commission considered this had
‘revealed the vulnerability of Icelandic society to a systemic breakdown’
(ibid.: 3). It did not see a direct short or medium-term military threat, but saw
long-term uncertainties with the increasing importance of the High North. It
mentioned greater threats in pandemics, natural disasters and organized crime,
and potential problems with the social exclusion of immigrants, the opening of
new shipping routes and organized cyber-attacks (ibid.: 5–12). The commission
made 25 recommendations, but governments have thus far not taken steps to
develop them into an official security strategy and/or action programme.
Iceland is a typical small state that finds its security environment buffeted by
outside events such as the US exodus from military bases and the global reces-
sion. Yet Icelandic policy on security matters has depended much on the
outcome of internal political debate, and Iceland has shown itself willing to con-
front the IMF and the UK over ‘Icesave’. A country used to natural disasters –
on land and at sea – is well-placed to face the challenges that come under the
broader definition of security, though its citizens’ independence of mind may
lead to continued disagreements over security policy and a rejection of EU
membership.
Notes
1 In 2007, the then Minister of Defence said that ‘the three main security challenges for
Finland today are Russia, Russia, and Russia’ (Häkämies 2007: 6).
2 Previously, the Social Liberals had supported the Social Democrat-led policy of enter-
ing reservations (footnotes) against NATO’s nuclear policies.
3 The opt-outs obtained at the Edinburgh European Council meeting encouraged Danish
voters to accept the Maastricht Treaty, which they had previously rejected in a
referendum.
Bibliography
Archer, C. (1999) ‘Nordic Swans and Baltic Cygnets’, Cooperation and Conflict, 34(1):
47–71.
Archer, C. (2010) ‘The Stoltenberg Report and Nordic Security: Big Idea, Small Steps’,
in Hvidt, N. and Mouritzen. H. (eds) Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2010, Copen-
hagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, pp. 43–74.
Archer, T. (2011) Between Kant and Hobbes. Finnish Security Policy after European
Integration, Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University, PhD.
Arctic Council (2011) ‘Task Force on Search and Rescue’, available online at: www.
arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/task-forces/282-task-force-on-search-and-
rescue (accessed 27 August 2012).
Arctic Council Secretariat (2013) ‘Kiruna Declaration’, available online at: www.arctic-
council.org/index.php/en/document- archive/category/425-main- documents-from-
kiruna-ministerial-meeting (accessed 29 June 2013).
Bailes, A.J.K. and Thorhallsson, B. (2006) ‘Iceland and the European Security and
Defence Policy’, in Bailes, A.J.K., Herolf, G. and Sundelius, B. (eds) The Nordic
Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, pp. 328–348.
Barth Eide, E. (2009) ‘Collective Defence in Today’s Security Environment’, available
online at: www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/aktuelt/taler_artikler/politisk_ledelse/statssekre-
taer_espen_barth_eide/2009/collective-defence-in-todays-security-en.html?id=582015
(accessed 2 October 2011).
Danish Emergency Management Agency (2011a) ‘The Emergency Management Act’,
available online at: brs.dk/eng/legislation/act/Pages/the_emergency_management_act.
aspx (accessed 25 August 2012).
Danish Emergency Management Agency (2011b) ‘National Crisis Management’, avail-
able online at: brs.dk/eng/emergency_management/national_emergency_management_
organisation/Pages/national_emergency_management_organisation.aspx (accessed 25
August 2012).
Den nordiske solidaritetserklæringen (2011) Available online at: www.regjeringen.no/
upload/UD/Vedlegg/Nordisk%20samarbeid/Den_nordiske_solidaritetserklaeringen.pdf
(accessed 6 October 2011).
110 C. Archer
Faremo, G. (2010) ‘NATO retter nå oppmerksomheten hjemover’, available online at:
www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/aktuelt/taler_artikler/ministeren/taler-og-artikler-av-
forsvarsminister-gr/2010/nato-retter-na-oppmerksomheten-hjemover.html?id=625243
(accessed 2 October 2011).
Finnish Defence Forces (2012) ‘Defence Forces Reform Concept’, available online at: www.
defmin.fi/files/2054/Defence_Forces_reform_concept_8212.pdf (accessed 9 August 2012).
Forsvaret (2012) ‘Opgaver’, available online at: www2.forsvaret.dk/omos/opgaver/Pages/
opgaver.aspx (accessed 25 August 2012).
Försvarsdepartementet (2010) ‘Trygg tillsammans’, available online at: www.sakerhet-
spolitik.se/Global/PDF/PDF%20Elever/Trygg%20tillsammans_Webb.pdf (accessed 25
August 2012).
Försvarsmakten (2010) ‘Försvarsmaktens Årsredovisning 2009 Resultatredovisning, resul-
taträkning, balansräkning, anslagsredovisning,finansieringsanalys och noter’, available
online at: www.forsvarsmakten.se/upload/dokumentfiler/%C3%85rsredovisningar/%C3
%85rsredovisning%202009/%C3%85R%2009%20.pdf (accessed 17 August 2012).
Government Report (2001) Finnish Security and Defence Policy 2001, UaVL 6/2001 vp
– VNS 2/2001 vp.
Government Resolution (2003) ‘Government Resolution on Securing the Functions Vital to
Society’, available online at: www.defmin.fi/files/168/2587_2047_Government_Resolu-
tion_On_Securing_The_Functions_Vital_To_Society_1_.pdf (accessed 3 December 2008).
Græger, N. (2002) ‘Norway and the EU’s Defence Dimension: A “Troops for Influence”
Strategy’, in Græger, N., Larsen, H. and Ojanen, H. (eds) The ESDP and the Nordic
Countries. Four Variations on a Theme, Helsinki: UPI, pp. 33–89.
Hækkerup, N. (2013) ‘En ny realisme – principper for en aktiv forsvars- og sikkerheds-
politik’, available online at: www.fmn.dk/forsvarsministeren/talerogartikler/Docu-
ments/FM-tale-ved-CMS-seminar-5marts2013.pdf (accessed 29 June 2013).
Häkämies, J. (2007) ‘Finland: Similar but Different’, Speech by Minister of Defence
Häkämies at CSIS Washington, DC 6 September 2007, available online at: www.
defmin.fi/index.phtml?663_m=3335&l=en&s=270 (accessed 1 July 2008).
Holm, H.-H. (2002) ‘Danish Foreign Policy Activism. The Rise and Decline’, Danish
Foreign Policy Yearbook 2002, Copenhagen: Danish Institute of International Affairs,
pp. 19–45.
Holst, J.J. (1990) ‘Foreword. Nordic Security: Past Mirrors and Future Faces’, The Annals
of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences, November: 8–15.
IISS (1999) The Military Balance 1999–2000, International Institute for Strategic Studies,
London: Oxford University Press.
IISS (2009) The Military Balance 2009, International Institute for Strategic Studies,
London: IISS.
Løwer, E. (2000) ‘Our Defence in an International Perspective’, Address to Oslo Military
Society, 10 January 2000, Oslo: mimeo.
Ministry of Defence, Finland (2005) ‘Press Release from Nordic-Baltic Ministers
meeting’, available online at: www.defmin.fi (accessed 1 October 2011).
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (2010) ‘When disaster strikes – Denmark will
help’, available online at: www.netpublikationer.dk/um/10504/pdf/when_disaster_
strikes.pdf (accessed 25 August 2012).
Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Iceland) (2009) ‘A Risk Assessment for Iceland: Global,
Societal, and Military Factors. Summary of the Findings of an Interdisciplinary
Commission’, available online at: www.mfa.is/media/Skyrslur/A_Risk_Assessment_
for_Iceland_-_English_Summary.pdf.
The Nordic states and security 111
Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Iceland) (2010) ‘Report of the Working Group on Security
and Administrative Reorganisation’, available online at: www.mfa.is/media/MFA_pdf/
Skyrsla-starfshopsins_ENS.pdf (accessed 25 August 2012).
Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (2005) The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration,
London: Routledge.
Ojanen, H. (2008) ‘Finland and the ESDP: “Obliquely forwards”?’ in Archer, C. (ed.)
New Security Issues in Northern Europe The Nordic and Baltic States and the ESDP,
Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 56–77.
Petersen, N.H. (1997) ‘Security Cooperation and Integration in the Baltic Region. The
Role of the European Union: Soft security?’ in Christensen, S.A. and Wæver, O. (eds)
DUPIDOK 1996. Dansk udenrigspolitisk dokumentation, Copenhagen: Dansk Uden-
rigspolitisk Institut, pp. 273–278.
Prime Minister’s Office (2004) Finnish Security and Defence Policy 2004 Helsinki: Prime
Minister’s Office Publications 18/2004.
Prime Minister’s Office (2011) ‘Preparedness and Comprehensive Security. Committee
Report’, Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office Publications 18/2011, available online at:
www.vnk.fi/julkaisukansio/2010/j21-varautuminen- j1511-beredskap- j1811-
preparedness/PDF/en.pdf (accessed 9 August 2012).
Rapport om Forsvarets fremtidige struktur og størrelse. Rapport fra det af Forsvarsmin-
isteren den 11. april 1991 nedsatte Udvalg vedrørende forsvarets udvikling mv. 2 marts
1992 (1992), Copenhagen: Ministry of Defence.
Rasmussen, A.F. (2003) ‘Speech by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the
Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC, 9 May 2003’, Danish Foreign Policy Year-
book 2004, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, pp. 190–198.
Rasmussen, M.V. (2005) ‘Camp Eden: The 2004 Defence Agreement, Military Power
and Danish Values’, Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2005, Copenhagen: Danish Insti-
tute for International Studies, pp. 41–64.
Regeringen (2004) ‘Swedish Government Bill 2004/05:5. Our Future Defence. The focus
of Swedish Defence Policy 2005–2007’, available online at: www.regeringen.se/
content/1/c6/05/57/44/224a4b3c.pdf (accessed 9 August 2012).
Regeringen (2007) ‘Statement of Government Policy in the Parliamentary Debate on
Foreign Affairs, Wednesday 14 February 2007’, available online at: www.regeringen.
se/content/1/c6/03/95/92/fa8a1932.pdf (accessed 9 August 2012).
Regeringskansliet (2009) ‘Ett användbart försvar – med kraftigt stärkt försvarsförmåga’,
available online at: www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11431/a/122883 (accessed 9 August 2012).
Regeringskansliet (2011) ‘Sweden’s Security Policy’, available online at: www.sweden.
gov.se/sb/d/3103/a/116839 (accessed 9 August 2012).
Regeringskansliet (2013) ‘Försvarsministern värd för det nordiska Hagamötet’, (Defence
Minister hosted the Nordic Haga meeting), available online at: www.regeringen.se/
sb/d/17021/a/218686 (accessed 29 June 2013).
Ringsmose, J. and Rynning, S. (2008) ‘The Impeccable Ally? Denmark, NATO and the
Uncertain Future of Top Tier membership’, Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2008,
Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies, pp. 55–84.
Rynning, S. (2003) ‘Denmark as a Strategic Actor? Danish Security Policy after 11
September,’ Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2003, Copenhagen: Danish Institute of
International Studies, pp. 23–46.
Security and Defence Committee (2006) ‘The Strategy for Securing the Functions Vital
to Society’, Government Resolution, 23 September, available online at www.defmin.fi/
files/858/06_12_12_YETTS__in_english.pdf (accessed 5 December 2007).
Stoltenberg, T. (2009) ‘Nordic Cooperation on Foreign and Security Policy proposals
112 C. Archer
Presented to the Extraordinary Meeting of Nordic Foriegn Ministers in Oslo on 9
February 2009’, available online at: www.regjeringen.no (accessed 1 October 2011).
Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (2009) ‘Emergency Planning. Crisis Management
in Sweden’, available online at: www.msb.se/en/About-MSB/Crisis-Management-in-
Sweden/ (accessed 21 August 2012).
Wedin, L. (2008) ‘Northern Europe and the ESDP: The Case of Sweden’, in Archer, C.
(ed.) New Security Issues in Northern Europe. The Nordic and Baltic States and the
ESDP, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, pp. 38–55.
7 Security concerns of the Baltic
States in the twenty-first century
Mindaugas Jurkynas
Introduction
The security of the three small states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (the Baltic
States),1 has, perhaps unsurprisingly, never been off the political agenda in these
countries. Arguably, their membership in NATO and the EU since 2004 should
have somewhat – at least, de jure – reduced their concerns; but it would be naïve
to think that security issues ceased to be part of Baltic political discourse as a
result. With the end of the Cold War, the theoretical conceptualization of
security has broadened from the politico-military to other fields, embracing
society, energy, the economy, cyber-space, the environment and other dimen-
sions. As explained in Chapter 2, processes of globalization, Europeanization
and others have blurred the line between domestic and foreign policies and thus
between endogenous and exogenous aspects of security. The range of security
worries in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia has rapidly proliferated accordingly:
issues of identity, emigration, interdependence, the integration of minorities and
the like have entered into domestic debates on the state’s duty to provide security
and welfare and to foster the national culture and identity. Real-life events in the
Baltics have also fuelled security concerns, including the broad-range cyber-
attacks against Estonian cyber-space in 2007 and against Lithuania’s major inter-
net media outlets in 2013; disruptions of fossil fuel supplies to Lithuania since
2006; and the general status of the Baltics as an ‘energy island’, with few links
to the rest of the European Union (EU). The disquieting Russian military exer-
cises in 2009, which simulated the invasion of the Baltic States, not only under-
pinned the call for NATO to draw up contingency plans for the Baltic States’
defence, but brought security narratives back into these countries’ own academic
and political discussions.
A well-worn joke circulates from time to time in diplomatic circles: the Baltic
States are preoccupied only with three issues: Russia, Russia and . . . we forgot
the third one – must be Russia. Those writing foreign audience-oriented speeches
for high-ranking Baltic officials have a similarly limited menu to choose from,
114 M. Jurkynas
including perceptions of state smallness, relations with neighbours in a sensitive
North European geopolitical milieu and notorious historical legacies. Actual
foreign policy statements made by Baltic politicians in recent years rest on three
pillars: energy security, the EU’s Eastern neighbourhood and Russia, and
Europe–US relations. All are linked to post-Soviet states’ relations with Russia
and find echoes in present politics. For example, Lithuania’s 2013 EU Presid-
ency priorities focused on the EU’s Eastern partnership, energy sustainability,
EU external borders and the EU Baltic Sea Strategy.2 In July of that year the
Lithuanian President, Ms. Dalia Grybauskaitė, drew attention to Russia’s
increasing grip on the Eastern European states.3 Estonia’s President, Toomas
Hendrik Ilves, similarly emphasizes the EU’s financial stability and external
borders, energy issues, the Eastern Partnership, the Baltic Sea Strategy and
cyber-security as key security issues for small states.4 The Latvian foreign min-
istry publicly cites defence and security as top priorities.5 All these recurring
issues reflect the way that living memories, smallness and relational insecurity,
as well as geopolitical realities, circumscribe foreign and security policies in the
Baltics: ‘Old legacies continue to dog the states formerly under Soviet domina-
tion, whilst new opportunities may undermine the fragile sense of regional com-
munity’ (Kirby 1999).
At the same time, in historical perspective, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia may
have never felt as secure as today. European and trans-Atlantic reunification, to
use Bernard-Henri Lévy’s term (2013),6 have brought substantial institutional
and operational security guarantees for member states’ hard (strategic, military)
and soft (energy-related, virtual, economic, environmental, etc.) security needs.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, in their successful quest to join the new West,
were seeking historical justice and fulfilment of their socio-economic and hard
security requirements; but they also embraced the Europeanization7 of their
political, legal and economic modi operandi, participation in collective decision-
making, and the ability to upload national interests, values, norms and concerns
into EU and NATO agendas (Jurkynas 2012a; Ozoliņa 2012; Veebel and Loik
2012). As noted, however, EU and NATO membership have not eliminated
security concerns. The Baltic States still view their place in the West and rela-
tions with Russia in terms of existential politics (Mälksoo 2006). Baltic regional
identities are largely framed by security concerns about Russia, Soviet legacies,
and the experiences of post-Communist transformation (Jurkynas 2007).
Prior to the NATO and EU enlargements of 2004, Baltic States’ security was
an almost over-researched topic (Jurkynas 2007: 20), but attention has since
dwindled. This chapter aims to discuss the most important and acute security
challenges faced by the Baltic States after 2004, together with current or planned
security solutions. Country size; power, identity and subsequent national inter-
ests; integration and cooperation; and the roles of the NATO and the EU will
appear as key factors. The nations’ main structures and procedures for security
policy making will also be covered. Normatively, the Baltic case suggests certain
lessons for the empirical aspects of security studies. The factors of size and
related lack of concrete resources are shown to sharpen the Baltic States’
Security concerns of the Baltic States 115
anxieties and to prompt them constantly to remind the EU and NATO of their
concerns. Neighbourhood, history and identity, but also national size and power,
do matter for the security of the Baltics today.
Conclusions
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia constitute an interesting case in the context of
small state security. They show how the ‘post-traumatic stress disorder’ of
nations – once occupied, annexed and rather recently independent – seeps into
identity and drives the search for security against a former ruling power and its
legacies. The review of Baltic security challenges and responses confirms that
Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian policy makers tend to base their security
assessments on a well-established, ‘anti-Russia’ habit as part of their identity.
While the Baltic States have made considerable efforts to become part of the
West, little has changed in Baltic security considerations following membership
of NATO and the EU. Soviet legacies and Russia’s neighbourhood may at times
lead to over-generalizations about the ‘big neighbour’; yet recent experience of
incidents in the fields of energy and cyber-security (among others) keeps Russia
on the Baltic political mind. Both traditional ‘hard’ and new, post-Cold War
‘soft’ security concerns have nudged the Baltic States towards more regional
integration, primarily within the EU and NATO – even though these qualify the
much-cherished sovereignty regained after the collapse of the USSR. Seeking a
strategic shelter was the primary raison d’être for the Western integration that
has increased the Baltics’ security, making them part of decision-making coali-
tions and uploading Baltic concerns onto the agendas of political organizations.
Aside from NATO’s contingency Baltic defence plans and active military
cooperation, the introduction of the euro, diversification of energy imports,
deeper involvement in EU external actions and avoidance of a two-speed Europe
are among top Baltic security priorities today. Identity and security concerns,
among others, remain important variables driving Lithuanian, Latvian and Esto-
nian choices within the EU. Calls for Europeanization of the EU’s Eastern neigh-
bours and enhanced energy security for the Baltics, let alone specific tensions
with Russia and the integration of national minorities, are generated not least by
identity constructions and living memories in the Baltic region. Smallness
appears as a factor, as one might expect, yet is not particularly dominant. Espe-
cially within the EU, the Baltics’ activism and regional cooperation, notably
with the Nordic states, allows them to partly escape their smallness in terms of a
traditional understanding of power and resources. The EU forum has served
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia well in dispelling power asymmetries, especially
vis-à-vis Russia. The small Baltic States so far fall among the chief enthusiasts
Security concerns of the Baltic States 125
for Westernization and Europeanization, which, directly or indirectly, have
enhanced their security and welfare. Mushrooming security challenges like inter-
national terrorism, nuclear safety, or energy, environmental and cyber-security
issues, have called for new responses, new evaluations and corresponding pol-
icies. The Baltic States have responded by adopting new national security strat-
egies and concepts within the last three years. The pattern of security
governance, however, remains complex: all Baltic States know the drill when it
comes to hard security issues, while the management of soft security problems
remains dispersed within government.
The analysis of the Baltic case poses an interesting, but probably unanswer-
able, question about small state security: What if the recent history of these
states had been far less painful and without Soviet legacies? Perhaps the Baltic
identity would be less imbued with victimization, and in the absence of identity
clashes, relations with Russia would be seen in a light of desecuritization. As
things stand, living next to the assertive regional power has taught these small
states to accommodate their national identity and even sovereignty to Western
values and institutions, and to elaborate different modes of cooperative engage-
ment and contribution.
Notes
1 The total population of the Baltic States is barely over six million people and the ter-
ritory of the largest country, Lithuania, is just 65,302 km2.
2 Nutarimas dėl Lietuvos Respublikos Pirmininkavimo ES Tarybai 2013 m., Lithuanian
Parliament, available online at: www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_
id=410980&p_query=&p_tr2=2 (accessed 10 July 2013).
3 ‘Lithuania’s President Warns of Russia’s Rising Influence in the East’, Financial
Times 2 July 2013, available online at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4eb04500-e32b-11e2-
bd87–00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Y4HMQggO (accessed 15 July 2013).
4 President Toomas Hendrik Ilves at the State Dinner in Vilnius, 27 May 2013, available
online at: www.President.ee/en/official-duties/speeches/9092-President-toomas-hendrik-
ilves-at-the-state-dinner-in-vilnius-27-may-2013/index.html (accessed 15 July 2013).
5 Speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, Mr. Edgars
Rinkēvičs at the Foreign Policy Debate in the Saeima, 24 January 2013, available
online at: www.mfa.gov.lv/en/news/speeches/2013/24–3/ (accessed 19 July 2013).
6 Bernard-Henri Lévy: ‘I Don’t Care Much about my Image’, Financial Times 14 June
2013, available online at: www.ft.com/cms/s/2/080ad66c-d2ee-11e2-aac2–00144
feab7de.html#axzz2Y4wkKUS1 (accessed 20 July 2013).
7 Europeanization is a process of cultural, political and organizational change along
European lines, within and beyond the borders of Europe. It has top-down (‘down-
load’ of EU norms and practices), bottom-up (‘upload’ of member states’ interests)
and horizontal (sharing good practices and learning) vectors (Flockhart 2006: 86).
8 Внешнеполитические враги и друзья России, Levada Center, 18 June 2013,
The Levada Institute, available online at: www.levada.ru/18–06–2013/vneshne
politicheskie-vragi-i-druzya-rossii (accessed 15 July 2013).
9 These include Russia’s embargoes of energy and food products for a number of coun-
tries (Lithuania, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, etc.), the 2007 cyber-attacks against
Estonia, the 2008 war with Georgia, Alexander Litvinenko’s and Anna Politko-
vskaya’s homicides, control of the media, rigged elections, violation of human rights,
the destruction, persecution and intimidation of political opponents and businessmen
126 M. Jurkynas
(e.g. the cases of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Pussy Riot, Sergey Magnitsky and Alexei
Navalny), revisionist history broadcasts on the Russia’s First Baltic Channel and
military exercises in the Baltic neighbourhood.
10 According to opinion polls of October 2012, 60 per cent of Lithuanian respondents
see no threats to the state, whereas 18 per cent name Russia and 1.7 per cent identify
Poland as the main sources of threats. ‘Apklausa: realių grėsmių Lietuvai nėra, o jei
bus – mus apgins NATO?’, Delfi Internet Portal, available online at: www.delfi.lt/
news/daily/lithuania/apklausa-realiu-gresmiu-lietuvai-nera-o-jei-bus-mus-apgins-
nato.d?id=60063003 (accessed 10 July 2013).
11 ‘The Lithuanian Constitution Adopted in 1992 Promulgates a Ban on Joining “post-
Soviet Eastern Unions” ’, Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija, available online at:
www3.lrs.lt/home/Konstitucija/Konstitucija.htm (accessed 20 July 2013).
12 The Baltic Assembly and the Baltic Council of Ministers served as fora for inter-
parliamentary and intergovernmental cooperation.
13 For instance, Lithuanian mainstream political parties decided for NATO membership in
October 1993. See ‘Lietuvos Respublikos politinių partijų kreipimasis dėl Lietuvos
Respublikos integravimosi į NATO’, Lithuanian Parliament, available online at: www3.
lrs.lt/pls/inter/w5_show?p_r=5042&p_d=62154&p_k=1 (accessed 10 July 2013).
14 The Baltic States benefit from a NATO air policing mission guarding their airspace.
15 ‘Bush Makes a Perilous NATO Pledge’, CATO Institute, available online at: www.
cato.org/publications/commentary/bush-makes-perilous-nato-pledge (accessed 25 July
2013). For an account of the ongoing US security interest in the Baltic States, see
Michel (2011).
16 EU voting rules, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, require large coalitions of member
states to achieve a qualified majority and this is next to impossible to achieve without
small states’ votes.
17 For example, Lithuania’s GDP amounts approximately 0.14 per cent of total EU GDP,
and the Lithuanian share of total EU population is barely 0.71 per cent, but the
country exercises 2.03 per cent of votes in the Council and provides 1.63 per cent of
European MPs and 3.7 per cent of EU Commissioners, auditors and judges.
18 The European Community and the Baltic States signed agreements on Trade and
Commercial and Economic Co-operation, then included Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
in the PHARE programme rather TACIS, which focused on ex-USSR countries. Free
Trade Agreements with the EU were concluded in 1994 and Association Agreements
in 1995. Estonia started membership negotiations in 1997, and Lithuania and Latvia
initiated them two years later.
19 Citizens in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia unequivocally endorsed EU membership for
their respective countries in referenda in 2003.
20 For example, to comply with EU Accession Treaty requirements, in 2009 Lithuania
decommissioned the Ignalina nuclear power facility, which satisfied around 70 per
cent of the country’s electricity needs.
21 Lithuania set the aim of signing an EU–Ukraine Association Agreement at the
November 2013 Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, during its EU Presidency.
Lithuania supports visa liberalization and better mutual trade arrangements as ways to
stimulate progress towards democracy and rule of law in Ukraine, and to reduce Rus-
sia’s influence in the core nation of the Eastern Partnership.
22 See Maigre (2010) on Baltic over-dependence for energy on Russia and Tarus and
Crandall (2012) on Russia’s continuing threat to Estonia.
23 See https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connecting-europe-facility (accessed 25
July 2013).
24 ‘Prime Minister: Euro is Matter of Security for Estonia’, 1 January 2011, available
online at: www.vm.ee/?q=node/10524 (accessed 15 July 2013).
25 ‘Saeima Speaker: Euro is a Symbol of Security and Stability’, 18 January 2013, available
online at: www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=68927 (accessed 19 July 2013).
Security concerns of the Baltic States 127
26 ‘A Power Audit of EU 27-Russia Relations’, European Council on Foreign Relations,
7 November 2007, available online at: www.ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_pr_
russia_power_audit/ (accessed 19 July 2013).
27 The Baltic and Nordic states hold no mutual grudges from history, which is rather
rare in neighbourly relations. Perhaps, in the medium term, the Baltic States could
gradually be engulfed into the Deutschian (1957) notion of the Nordic security
community.
28 According to Eurostat, in 2012 the ‘richest’ Baltic state, Lithuania, reached 70 per
cent of the EU27’s average GDP, whereas the ‘poorest’ Nordic state, Iceland, had 112
per cent of the EU average. Eurostat, GDP per capita in PPS (Purchasing Power
Standards), available online at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=tabl
e&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114 (accessed 29 August 2013).
29 Margarita Šešelgytė (2012) similarly concludes that Lithuanian security policy prefers
a modern to post-modern understanding of security.
30 ‘The NB8 Wise Men Report’, August 2010, available online at: www.utanrikisra-
duneyti.is/media/Skyrslur/NB8-Wise-Men-Report.pdf (accessed 29 August 2013).
31 At the conference ‘Twenty Years to Lithuanian-Norwegian Diplomatic Relations’,
Vilnius, March 2011.
32 E.g. The Baltic and Nordic countries agreed to host each others’ diplomats in a case
of need, while Latvia and Lithuania are about to follow Estonia in joining the EU’s
Swedish-led Nordic Battle Group in 2015.
33 All three Baltic States recently updated their security agendas: Estonia adopted a new
National Security Concept in 2010, Latvia’s Parliament issued a new National Security
Concept in 2011 and a new State Defence Concept in May 2012, and a new Lithuanian
National Security Strategy was approved in June 2012 (Kaljurand et al. 2012: 36–41).
34 In 2002–2007, the Estonian GDP per capita in PPS grew from 50 to 70 per cent of the
EU average, while the other Baltic States achieved similar growth.
35 ‘Military Expenditure (as a Percentage of GDP)’, The World Bank, available online
at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?order=wbapi_data_
value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc (accessed 15 July
2013).
36 Gini index, The World Bank, available HTTP: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/
SI.POV.GINI (accessed 15 July 2013).
37 ‘Global OECD Boosted by Decision to Open Membership Talks with Colombia and
Latvia with More to Follow’, The OECD, available online at: www.oecd.org/news-
room/global-oecd-boosted-by-decision-to-open-membership-talks-with-colombia-
and-latvia-with-more-to-follow.htm (accessed 15 July 2013).
38 The cost of heating households rocketed due to high Russian gas prices and lack of
alternatives to gas heating. Public discontent with the whole situation is tangible.
39 About 60 per cent of Estonia’s domestic energy production comes from oil shale. It is
about to be to substantially reduced due to the EU Climate and Energy Package
(Maigre 2010).
40 Lithuania faced a Russian blockade of oil exports via Druzhba pipeline after 2006,
when it chose to sell the oil refinery Mažeikių nafta to a Polish company –PKN Orlen
– instead of a Russian one. Nevertheless, imports of crude oil come through a sea ter-
minal – though with a lower profit margin for the Polish importer.
41 Maigre (2010: 13) claims that ‘direct and indirect Russian presence in the Latvian
energy sector could lead to a so-called “Gazpromisation” of the Latvian political
elite’.
42 Poland joined the project in 2009, but due to delays pulled out two years later.
43 Interview with Associate Professor, Dr. Arūnas Molis, Head of Strategic Analysis and
Research Division at the NATO Energy Security Excellence Centre, 29 June 2013.
44 Demonstrated by NATO’s sponsorship of the Energy Security Excellence Centre in
Vilnius.
128 M. Jurkynas
45 In Estonia, however, cyber-security, and also energy security, governance remains
decentralized among several ministries. Interview with Professor Andreas Kasekamp,
Director of the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute, 7 June 2013.
46 The Council is mandated to monitor cyber-security in the country and provide exper-
tise for the Commission on Coordination of Cybersecurity, established in 2006: but
there are still five or six different institutions dealing with information security includ-
ing the Information Society Development Committee under the Ministry of Transport,
and a Communication and Computer Emergency Response Team established under
the independent Communication Regulation Authority.
47 Since 2012, Latvia has paid more attention to cyber-security issues through the Parlia-
mentary National Security Committee (Baltic News Network, online at: http://bnn-
news.com/national-security-committee-focus-cyber-security-75918, accessed 20 June
2013). However, Latvian cyber-security and energy security governance is dispersed
between the ministries of foreign affairs and economy, though leadership would be
centralized ad hoc in case of emergency. Interview with Andris Sprūds, Director of
the Latvian Institute of International Affairs, 17 June 2013.
48 The Lithuanian President, for instance, in case of emergency or important security
issues, convenes a State Defence Council of high-ranking officials, such as the Prime
Minister, Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs, Supreme Commander of Armed
Forces, Head of Security Department and the like.
Bibliography
Bergman, A. (2004) ‘Nordic Integration Assistance: the Case of the Baltic States’, paper
presented at the conference, The Baltic States: New Europe or Old?, University of
Glasgow 22–23 January 2004.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G., Farrugia, N. and Valla, S. (2006) ‘Conceptualizing and Meas-
uring Economic Resilience’, in Briguglio, L., Cordina, G. and Kisanga, E.J. (eds),
Building the Economic Resilience of Small States, Malta: Islands and Small States
Institute and London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Bukovskis, K. (2012) ‘Latvia’, in Lobjakas, A. and Mölder, M. (eds) EU-Russia Watch
2012, University of Tartu, available online at: http://ceurus.ut.ee/wp-content/
uploads/2011/06/EU-Russia-watch_1–20121.pdf (accessed 20 July 2013).
Deutsch, K. (1957) Political Community and the North Atlantic Area, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Flockhart, T. (2006) ‘Europeanization: The Myths and the Facts’, Public Policy Research,
13(2): 86–91.
Franklin, Benjamin (1914) Poor Richard’s Almanack 1733,Waterloo, IA: The USC Pub-
lishing Company.
Ingebritsen, C. (2002) ‘Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics’,
Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1): 11–23.
Jurkynas, M.(2007) How Deep is Your Love: Baltic Brotherhood Re-Examined,Vilnius:
Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Jurkynas, M. (2012a) ‘Lithuania’, in Ó Beacháin, D., Sheriden, V. and Stan, S. (eds) Happy
Ever After? Life in post-communist Europe after EU membership, London: Routledge.
Jurkynas, M. (2012b) ‘Lithuania’, in Lobjakas, A. and Mölder, M. (eds) EU–Russia
Watch 2012, University of Tartu, Available online at: http://ceurus.ut.ee/wp-content/
uploads/2011/06/EU-Russia-watch_1–20121.pdf (accessed 20 July 2013).
Kaljurand, R. (2013) ‘Security Challenges of a Small State: The Case of Estonia’, in
‘Defence and Security for the Small: Perspectives from the Baltic States’, Centre for
Security concerns of the Baltic States 129
Small State Studies occasional paper: Reykjavik, available online at: http://ams.hi.is/
sites/ams.hi.is/files/defence_and_security_-_layout3.pdf (accessed 15 July 2013).
Kaljurand, R., Neretnieks, K., Ljung, B. and Tupay, J. (2012) ‘Developments in the
Security Environment of the Baltic Sea Region up to 2020’, International Centre for
Defence Studies, available online at: http://icds.ee/fileadmin/failid/Developments%20
in%20the%20Security%20Environment%20of%20the%20Baltic%20Sea%20
Region%20up%20to%202020.pdf (accessed 20 July 2013).
Kirby, D. (1999) ‘Locating the Baltic, Keynote address at the 16th Conference on Baltic
Studies’, Baltic Studies Newsletter 22–23 December 1999, available online at: www.
balticstudies-aabs.lanet.lv/bsn88/bsn88–01.html (accessed 18 July 2013).
Lobjakas, A. (2012) ‘EU–Russian Relations in 2011: A Four Dimensional Space’, in
Lobjakas, A. and Mölder, M. (eds) EU–Russia Watch 2012, University of Tartu, Avail-
able online at: http://ceurus.ut.ee/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EU-Russia-watch_1–
20121.pdf (accessed 18 July 2013).
Maigre, M. (2010) ‘Energy Security Concerns of the Baltic States’, International Centre
for Defence Studies, available online at: http://icds.ee/fileadmin/failid/Merle_Maigre-
Energy_Security_Concers_of_the_Baltic_States.pdf (accessed 20 July 2013).
Mälksoo, M. (2006) ‘From Existential Politics Towards Normal Politics? The Baltic
States in the Enlarged Europe’, Security Dialogue 37(3): 275–296.
Michel, L. (2011) ‘Baltic Security: Why the United States (Still) Cares’, in Nurick, R.
and Nordenman, M. (eds), Nordic-Baltic Security in the 21st Century, Atlantic Council:
Washington, DC.
Miniotaitė, G. (2003) ‘Convergent Geography and Divergent Identities: A Decade of
Transformation in the Baltic States’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 16/2.
Morozov, V. (2004) ‘Russia in the Baltic Sea Region: Desecuritisation or Deregionalisa-
tion’, Cooperation and Conflict, 39(3): 317–331.
Morozov, V. (2009) ‘Obsessed with Identity: The IR in post-Soviet Russia’, Journal of
International Relations and Development, 12: 200–205.
Neumann, I.B. (1994) ‘A Region-building Approach to Northern Europe’, Review of
International Studies, 20: 53–74.
Ojanen, H. (1999) ‘How to Customize Your Union: Finland and the Northern Dimension
of the EU’, Northern Dimensions, Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
Ozoliņa, Ž. (2012) ‘Latvia’, in Ó Beacháin, D., Sheriden, V. and Stan, S. (eds) Happy
Ever After? Life in Post-communist Europe after EU Membership, London: Routledge.
Šešelgytė, M. (2013) ‘A Midget Warrior: Security Choices of Lithuania’, in ‘Defence and
Security for the Small: Perspectives from the Baltic States’, Centre for Small State
Studies occasional paper, Reykjavik, available online at: http://ams.hi.is/sites/ams.hi.is/
files/defence_and_security_-_layout3.pdf (accessed 15 July 2013).
Tarus, T. and Crandall, M. (2012) ‘Is Russia a threat to Estonian energy security?’, Baltic
Journal of Political Science, December.
Thorhallsson, B. (2006) ‘The Size of States in the European Union: Theoretical and Con-
ceptual Perspectives’, Journal of European Integration, 28(1): 7–31.
The Financial Times (2013) ‘Lithuania’s President Warns of Russia’s Rising Influence in
the East’, 2 July, available online at: www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4eb04500-e32b-11e2-
bd87-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2Y4HMQggO (accessed 25 November 2013).
Veebel, V. and Loik, R. (2012) ‘Estonia’, in Ó Beacháin, D., Sheriden, V. and Stan, S. (eds)
Happy Ever After? Life in Post-communist Europe after EU Membership, London:
Routledge.
8 Security challenges in the
Western Balkans
Building ‘soft’ security after conflict
Višnja Samardžija and Senada Šelo Šabić
Introduction
The region of the Western Balkans (WB) includes seven countries: Albania,
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), Croatia, Macedonia,1 Kosovo, Montenegro and
Serbia – together corresponding to the former Yugoslavia minus Slovenia and
plus Albania.2 Currently crossing the European Union (EU) threshold,3 Croatia
is in a somewhat different position from other WB states in terms of the security
challenges discussed in this chapter. It has carried out a series of deep-reaching
reforms that completed the state-building process, strengthened democracy and
addressed most of the security problems still permeating this region to different
degrees. However, once in the EU Croatia is not able (or willing) simply to leave
regional issues, including security ones, to the remaining Western Balkan States.
The EU expects Croatia to be an anchor of stability in this region, and, also, to
serve partially as a role model for its neighbours: a model of how stabilization
and successful accession to the EU are achieved. However, there are challenges
in the Western Balkans that are not easily solved, and for which stabilization and
EU accession may not provide such conclusive answers as they seem to have
done for Croatia. This chapter will review the situation of all seven states men-
tioned – including Croatia’s interrelationships with the others – and the security
agenda for the region as a whole.
Chapter I of this book proposed using the ‘small state’ concept inter alia as a
‘focusing device’ to assess asymmetric power relations (cf. Thorhallsson and
Wivel 2006: 4, Wivel 2005). All Western Balkan (WB) States are small states by
this relativist definition, being the weaker party in a broader power relationship.
This is true of them all in a global or Europe-wide context, even if within the
region some states are bigger than the others and thus relatively more powerful.
Country Area (km2) Population Real GDP growth rates, GDP at current GDP per capita Military
(sources 1 (1 and 3) 2010 (% change over market prices, 2009 (PPS, EU 27 = 100, expenditure as % of
and 3) previous year) (2) (million euro) (2) 2010) (2) GDP, 2010 (4)
Sources: (1) CIA World Factbook, available online at: www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (accessed 25 November 2012); (2) Eurostat, European
Commission, Pocketbook on the enlargement countries, 2012 edition; (3) Eurostat, European Commission. Tables, graphs and maps; (4) SIPRI military expenditure
database, available online at: www.sipri.org/databases/milex/milex (accessed 25 November 2012).
Security challenges in the Western Balkans 133
Demography is important for every state, even more so for a small state. Since
2000, demographic trends in all WB countries show a slowing-down of popula-
tion growth. Albania, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina retain positive,
but significantly reduced, growth rates, while Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia
recorded negative rates. Kosovo is not included in the statistics (see Table 8.2).9
The size of economies, population and territories, coupled with democratic and
market transitions and a post-conflict environment, creates different kinds of
‘soft’ security challenges that states in the region are confronting individually,
through regional cooperation, and with the assistance of external actors – prim-
arily the EU, NATO, the US and some other recent players in the region, like
Russia and Turkey.
State weaknesses
A necessary precondition for resisting such threats is that states possess institu-
tional capacity and political legitimacy to implement laws and employ force, if
necessary. The fact that most WB states are weak, unfinished states explains why
soft security threats remain a serious security concern (Kostovicova 2007; Jano
2009; Grdešić 2009).
The Index of State Weakness in the Developing World (Rice and Patrick
2008) measures 141 states by various economic, political, security and social
welfare indicators to produce a list of the weakest states in the world. In global
terms, according to this index, the WB states are far from being the absolute
weakest. Serbia is listed as the weakest of them (positioned at 108), followed by
Albania (ranked 111), BiH (113), Macedonia (114) and Croatia (131). Monte-
negro and Kosovo are not ranked since they became independent at the time the
research was ongoing or just completed, in 2006 and 2008 respectively.
Although WB states score relatively well on this list, a point of concern is the
fact that they are the only European states – except Moldova and Ukraine –
thought weak enough to be included in it.
State weakness has different ‘faces’ in the WB region. For example, the lack
of political consensus on the nature of the state as in BiH (cf High Representa-
tive in BiH 2012), regional constraints as in Macedonia or unfinished territorial
delineation as in Serbia’s case, are specific national concerns that compound the
general weakness of all WB states. The rulings of the International Criminal Tri-
bunal for the Former Yugoslavia (in November 2012), proclaiming Croatian
generals Gotovina and Markač and the former Kosovo Prime Minister, Haradi-
naj, not guilty of war crimes, led to an upsurge of nationalist rhetoric within
Serbia and the shattering of its relations with neighbours. Conversely, when The
Hague Tribunal acquitted Serbian general Perišić in March 2013, criticism of the
tribunal’s modus operandi was heard among Serbia’s neighbours. Nationalist
rhetoric is still a potent instrument to foment mistrust and raise fears in the
region.
Year/no of countries (total) 2005/159 2006/163 2007/180 2008/180 2009/180 2010/178 2011/183
Croatia 70 69 64 62 66 62 66
Serbia 97 90 79 85 83 78 86
Montenegro 97 84 85 69 69 66
BiH 88 93 84 92 99 91 91
Albania 126 111 105 85 95 87 95
Macedonia 103 105 84 72 71 62 69
Kosovo – – – – – 110 112
Terrorism
The Western Balkan States are not currently targeted by any radical terrorist group
and the threat of radical terrorism remains limited. However, although not provid-
ing the training or the terrain for breeding terrorist groups, the Western Balkans
may play a secondary role as a site for terrorist transit, rest and recuperation
(Woehrel 2005). The US Embassy in Sarajevo called the 2011 shooting at the US
Embassy an incident, not an act of terrorism.14 In 2012, five men were put on trial
on terrorism charges after killing five people at the Smiljkovsko Lake in Mace-
donia, reportedly aiming to create fear, insecurity and inter-ethnic intolerance
among Macedonian citizens (Karajkov 2012). It was found that the perpetrators
were not (yet) connected to any terrorist organization. Infiltration by some radical
Islamic groups was noted in parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sandjak (Serbia),
Macedonia and Kosovo in the late 1990s. Today, the general assessment is that the
threat of Islamic terrorism is primarily cited for political purposes; yet as the fear of
terrorism is rooted in its very unpredictability, it could take just one or two terrorist
acts to jeopardize security here as elsewhere in the world.
Table 8.4 Percentage of unemployed workforce in the Western Balkans, 2005–2011 (%)
NATO
NATO focuses on military aspects of security in the Western Balkans. Most coun-
tries in the region want to join NATO. Their shared membership would defuse
conflict threats that the region grappled with in the 1990s, but also strengthen the
rule of law and democratic institutions – prerequisites for enhanced security.
NATO opened its Partnership for Peace programme to WB states and Mace-
donia joined in the mid-1990s, while the others followed by 2000. Croatia and
Albania are full-fledged NATO members as of 2009, while others, apart from
Serbia, are implementing required reforms as a prerequisite for membership.
Montenegro and BiH joined the Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2009 and
2010 respectively with long reform paths ahead, a task the more difficult given
their moderate public support for NATO membership (59.7 per cent in BiH15 and
37.3 per cent in Montenegro).16 Serbia, although a member of the PfP, is not cur-
rently a potential NATO member since, in 2007, it declared itself a (militarily)
neutral state.17 Public opinion in Kosovo favours NATO membership, but its
membership ambitions are hampered by incomplete recognition.18
The region has also experienced NATO military deployments to counter military
threats. By 2012, the initially 60,000 strong NATO-led international military force
in BiH (deployed in 1995), had been reduced to 600 soldiers, but the NATO-led
Kosovo Force (KFOR) has some 5,500 troops on the ground. The international
military presence has de-militarized local conditions and defused tensions to a point
where military clashes pose no immediate risk, although much work remains to
institute effective civilian control of local armed and other security forces.
Regional cooperation
Regional cooperation is understood as a prerequisite for creating stability,
security and long-term peace in Western Balkans, and has been seen as the ‘main
remedy for the regional conflicts’ (Elbassani 2008: 300). Apart from security-
driven reasons, regional cooperation has a strong economic dimension. Today,
the measure of success for a small country is its ability to integrate in the inter-
national system and benefit from access to larger markets at various levels, from
the sub-regional and regional upwards (Bechev 2011: 154).
Regional cooperation is understood as a collective, intergovernmental action
of three or more states that takes place within a geographically-bounded, but
sometimes vaguely defined or politically contestable, setting. The outcomes are
varied and may include trade liberalization, joint regulation, common projects,
institutional arrangements and decision-making procedures, common responses
to threats and issues especially of a political kind and many other joint solutions
(Bechev 2011). Numerous regional organizations and initiatives exist in the WB
region,20 and engaging in them has become a cornerstone of EU accession condi-
tionality for WB states. Initial local reactions to requests for stronger coopera-
tion were not enthusiastic, but it is now accepted as a necessary condition for EU
and NATO membership (Stubbs and Solioz 2012: 23). Over time, the WB coun-
tries have become more active and the ‘ownership’ of regional cooperation has
gradually strengthened.
Cooperation takes place in the fields of justice and home affairs, law enforce-
ment, police cooperation and other security-related areas. The focus is on soft
security issues, such as corruption, trans-border crime, illegal trafficking, migra-
tion management and the promotion of transparency in public administration. A
number of projects or joint activities have resulted, which advance good gover-
nance and help to create intergovernmental frameworks to deal with these chal-
lenges more effectively.
Today, the umbrella organization for WB regional cooperation is the Regional
Cooperation Council (RCC), launched in 2008 as a successor to the South-East
European Stability Pact.21 It operates under the political guidance of the South-
East European Cooperation Process (SEECP). In its sixth year of work, RCC
constitutes a clear-profiled, leading platform for guiding and monitoring cooper-
ation in SEE, and has helped to establish an integrated, regionally-owned coop-
eration mechanism among governmental security sectors. Local ownership of
regional cooperation has improved and must now move to a new level of consol-
idation by taking greater regional responsibility for carrying the process
forward.22
Among many other areas the RCC’s work includes cooperation on security-
related matters, such as justice and home affairs.23 The RCC has initiated the
Regional Police Cooperation Convention for SEE, a cooperation mechanism
Security challenges in the Western Balkans 141
linking the Chiefs of Military Intelligence (SEEMIC), the South-East European
National Security Authorities (SEENSA) and the South-East European Counter-
intelligence Chiefs Forum (SEECIC). The entity known as RACVIAC – Centre
for Security Cooperation (www.racviac.org, accessed 25 November 2013) –
deserves attention as an international, but regionally-owned, academic organiza-
tion that, since 2000, has helped foster dialogue and cooperation on security
matters by transforming thinking on national, regional and international security
cooperation issues.
There are further regional initiatives for security cooperation. The Southeast
Europe Police Chiefs Association (SEPCA, www.sepca-see.eu, accessed 25
November 2013) has, since 2007, promoted the police’s transformation into an
effective and democratic service, while the Police Cooperation Convention for
Southeast Europe (PCC SEE) organizes and monitors the implementation of the
treaty-based procedural mechanism for police regional cooperation.24 The
Regional Anti-corruption Initiative (RAI, www.rai-see.org, accessed 25
November 2013) was established in 2000 as an intergovernmental organization
and regional platform for combining the anti-corruption efforts of governments,
civil society, aid agencies and international organizations. In the area of civil
security, the Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South-Eastern
Europe (DPPI SEE), founded in 2000 by the member states of the Stability Pact,
aims to help the countries of the region work together in preventing and respond-
ing to natural and man-made disasters.
Governments in the region have signed a series of bilateral agreements on the
mutual extradition of criminals, who often found refuge in a neighbouring state
by (mis)using the status of dual citizenship.25 These agreements are not applied
to individuals charged with war crimes and cannot be retroactively applied, but
they are another important element of police and judicial cooperation.
These initiatives reflect the progress achieved towards ‘ownership’ of regional
cooperation in the areas of security, particularly in justice and home affairs. It is
important to note that practically all WB countries take part in key initiatives;26
and there has been some visible success. Integrated border management, police
cooperation in combating organized crime and corruption, and civil security
cooperation serve to confront security threats. Regional cooperation on security
fosters dialogue and integrates regional interests into national ones. Much
remains to be done, however, and further efforts are needed to consolidate
regional cooperation.
National responses
Confronted with various security challenges, WB nations have always needed
international, and in particular, European support and mentorship to improve the
conditions for stability and prosperity. One genuinely local effort to improve the
sense of trust and respect has, however, been the policy of reconciliation.27 The
capacity to face the past, and the courage to face victims and apologize to them,
is essential for overcoming mistrust and fear and for laying the basis for honest
142 V. Samardžija and S. Šelo Šabić
relations based on respect.28 The WB policy of reconciliation has been unan-
imously welcomed and supported by the international community, in particular
by the US, the EU and European capitals.29 However, there is a limit to what
such a policy can solve by itself.
With EU backing, several so-called high-level or structural dialogues have
been initiated in the region to attempt to overcome obstacles perceived as almost
insurmountable. Thus, the EU has launched activities to tackle issues like the
inability of Macedonia to progress towards NATO and EU accession due to the
‘name’ issue (handled by the High-level Accession Dialogue between EU and
the government of Macedonia – HLAD);30 the High-level Dialogue between
Kosovo and Serbia;31 and the Structured Dialogue with Bosnia and Herze-
govina.32 Their main goal is to relieve tensions over the highly-contested topics
they individually deal with, focusing instead on issues where agreements and
consensus can be reached. Dialogue is seen as an instrument to make break-
throughs on issues that have long been blocked, before negotiations on EU
accession for the relevant states can begin.
In contrast to the political sphere, civil society organizations have cooperated
across borders throughout the past two decades, confronting the region’s unre-
solved issues and seeking common solutions. One example is the regional, civil
society-driven initiative RECOM, which is working hard to mobilize support for
an initiative seeking to transform current national narratives that glorify the
national victims of past wars and aiming, instead, to treat all victims of these
wars as a shared memory. The method used for this, namely providing evidence
for each single loss of life in the wars of the 1990s in one document, offers a
blueprint for confronting the past, based on facts.33
Conclusion
Western Balkan states in their recent history of independence have faced
diverse security threats. The violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia led to a
series of succession wars and the creation of new countries that could all be
categorized as small, or even micro-, states. Their security has been jeopard-
ized by armed conflicts, by prolonged economic, political and social transi-
tions, and by slow post-conflict reconciliation. The threat of new military
conflicts is low and is expected to vanish completely once these states com-
plete accession to the EU and NATO. Yet a number of soft security threats
remain, seriously affecting the ‘normality’ associated with peaceful, stable,
democratic and sustainable states.
All WB states are in some way included in the process of accession or mem-
bership of the EU and NATO. As from 2013, Croatia is a member of both.
Albania is a member of NATO, while all other states are either candidates or
potential candidates for membership in both organizations (with the notable
exception of Serbia vis-à-vis NATO membership). The EU accession process is
particularly important for democratic, political, economic and administrative
reforms in the region. Furthermore, the measure of success for a small country
Security challenges in the Western Balkans 143
is, nowadays, its ability to integrate in the international system and benefit from
access to larger markets at various levels, from sub-regional to regional and
further upwards. However, after Croatia’s accession it is hard to envisage
another round of enlargement until 2020 or even later. The slow-down in
enlargement could bring new frustration, populism and nationalism in the region
and, what is most dangerous, another slow-down in local reforms. Essential
reforms are already going slowly, as these states are weakened both by internal
turmoil and by the external and/or regional pressures imposed on them inter alia
by bilateral disputes, and suspension or stalemate in their progress towards EU
membership.
State weakness has been reflected, among other things, in the lack of capa-
city to strengthen the rule of law, to control borders against organized crime
and to fight corruption. The strong society and strong economy that underpin a
viable democratic state have been lacking, leaving the whole process of state-
building – the corner-stone for creating stability and security in the region –
exposed to the often overlapping and sometimes conflicting agendas and
initiatives of different actors. This situation has changed as the EU has
emerged as the most responsible and present actor in the region, although
other actors still play roles.
The smallness of these states, combined with limited public administration
efficiency, clearly affects their capacity to efficiently address economic, social
and security issues. This is why regional cooperation in the area of security, par-
ticularly in the fields of justice and home affairs, is seen as a way forward. The
profile of existing initiatives shows that WB states have jointly responded to a
number of security challenges by regional cooperation, inter alia, in integrated
border management, police cooperation against organized crime and various
other aspects of civil security. Regional cooperation builds mutual trust, although
mutual trust is also a necessary precondition for cooperation. Under such con-
ditions, the WB region (with the exception of Croatia) in the decade to come will
remain an arena for intensive oversight and, in some respects, external adminis-
tration by the EU (and NATO). The transition to a neighbourhood of full-fledged
democracies and viable economies, of societies at peace with themselves and
others, will be long. It may be slow, but the most important point is that it keeps
going.
The heterogeneity of reform processes in the region is unavoidable and there-
fore should be accepted on its own merits. Croatia, as a new EU member state,
can positively impact upon and contribute to the implementation of reforms in
other countries during their accession process, by sharing knowledge, skills and
experience gained during its own EU apprenticeship. EU membership gives
Croatia an opportunity to explore the potential for transforming itself from a
small state to a small power (Jović, 2011: 7) in handling the foreign and security
policy issues facing the Western Balkans. Thus, the slow – and most likely pro-
longed – business of EU accession can be used to implement comprehensive
reforms, while adapting the accession process to each nation’s own capacities
and possibilities.
144 V. Samardžija and S. Šelo Šabić
Notes
1 In this chapter, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM or FYR Mace-
donia) is simply called Macedonia.
2 The term South-Eastern Europe (SEE) is sometimes also used to describe this region,
but it is geographically broader and also includes Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and
Greece; frequently Moldova, and sometimes Slovenia.
3 Croatia entered the EU on 1 July 2013.
4 The Republic of Croatia declared independence in 1991, while Kosovo declared inde-
pendence in 2008. On the other hand, Albania marked 100 years of independence in
2012.
5 The Republic of Kosovo became independent on 17 February 2008. As of 16 March
2013, Kosovo has received 101 diplomatic recognitions: from 99 of the 193 United
Nations (UN) member states, 22 of 27 European Union (EU) member states, 24 of 28
NATO member states, and 32 of 57 Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
member states. The Government of Serbia does not officially recognize it.
6 Serbia is facing the challenge of the territorial issue and new forms of nationalistic
rhetoric, Kosovo is burdened with the issues of international recognition and identity,
Macedonia with the so-called name issue, Albania with deep internal political rifts
and BiH with the constitutional issue.
7 The SIPRI military database contains data for 171 countries for the period
1988–2011.
8 See, www.balkan-monitor.eu/files/BalkanMonitor-2010_Summary_of_Findings.pdf
(accessed 19 November 2012).
9 The population growth rate is defined as the average annual per cent change in the
population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance
of migrants entering and leaving a country.
10 See also Chapter 9, on Moldova and Georgia, in this volume.
11 EUROPOL SOCTA 2013 Report, Chapter 2: Crime Areas, available online at: www.
europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/socta2013.pdf (accessed 20 November
2012).
12 Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić was assassinated on 12 March 2003, in Belgrade. The
former commander of the Red Berets, an elite Special Operations Unit, founded by
the regime of Slobodan Milošević to carry out special tasks during the wars in the
former Yugoslavia, was accused of organizing the assassination. This tragedy led to
the decision by the Serbian government to dissolve the Red Berets.
13 In 2010, the former Croatian Prime Minister and several ministers in his cabinet were
put on trial on charges of corruption.
14 Mevlid Jašarević, a 23-year-old from Novi Pazar in Serbia, fired at the Embassy; see
(Hopkins and Hadžović 2011).
15 Banja Luka (2011).
16 CEDEM (2012)
17 See www.isac-und.org/download/Neutrality_in_Europe_in_the_XXI_century_and_
the_Case_of_Serbia.pdf (accessed 19 November 2012).
18 The main obstacle has been the position of four NATO members that do not recog-
nize Kosovo’s independence – Spain, Slovakia, Greece and Romania. ‘Kosovo’s Path
towards the NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programme’, Kosovar Center for
Security Studies 2012, p. 9, available online at: http://qkss.org/new/index.php?section
=news&cmd=details&newsid=330&teaserId=11 (accessed 19 November 2012).
19 In BiH, the EU Military Operation, EUFOR Althea, taking over from NATO’s SFOR
to maintain peace and security, was followed by the EU Police Mission EUPM and
the creation of an EU Special Representative, EUSR. In Macedonia the EU Military
Operation EUFOR Concordia, focusing on crisis prevention, was followed by the EU
Police Mission, EUPOL Proxima, later replaced by the EU Police Advisory Team,
Security challenges in the Western Balkans 145
EUPAT. In Kosovo, the EU’s Rule of Law Mission (EULEX Kosovo) is the EU’s
largest CSDP mission and holds responsibility for security and stability following the
UN-mandated Interim Mission, UNMIK.
20 Regional organizations and initiatives in WB countries could be categorized into
several groups according to their legal status and institutional characteristics. Some
function as international intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organ-
izations (NGOs); others are donor-funded initiatives or projects; and there are many
networks with structures and operations hosted by other, mostly governmental, insti-
tutions (Regional Cooperation Council, 2011).
21 The EU-sponsored Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe was launched in 1999 as
the international community’s first comprehensive conflict prevention strategy, aimed
at strengthening the efforts of the WB countries to foster peace, democracy, respect
for human rights and economic prosperity.
22 Regional Cooperation Council (2011–2012).
23 The European Commission, which is a member of the RCC, provides financial
support for the Secretariat in Sarajevo and for some of its initiatives.
24 This is adopted by eight countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, The
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania and
Serbia).
25 For a quick grasp of the process, see http://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/hrvatska-i-srbija-
dogovorili-medzusobno-izrucivanje-kriminalaca.html; http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/
xhtml/hr/features/setimes/features/2011/05/19/feature-02 (accessed 19 November 2012).
26 In some initiatives Kosovo is still not participating officially.
27 Croatian President, Ivo Josipović, who took office in 2010, made a strong contribution
together with the Serbian President, Boris Tadić, to consolidating relations between
Serbia and Croatia, and improving the sense of reconciliation and understanding in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. The new Serbian government should continue in these
efforts.
28 The policy of reconciliation has been extensively covered in the media, mostly
endorsed but also criticized by nationalist circles on all sides.
29 See, www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/10/199931.htm and http://daily.tportal.hr/94848/
Fuele-Tadic-s-visit-to-Vukovar-important-step-towards-reconciliation.html (accessed 19
November 2012).
30 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-12–187_en.htm?locale=en (accessed 19
November 2012).
31 See, http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/09/
27/feature-02 (accessed 25 November 2013).
32 See, http://europa.ba/Default.aspx?id=87&lang=EN (accessed 25 November 2013).
33 See, www.zarekom.org/uploads/documents/2011/04/i_836/f_28/f_1865_en.pdf (accessed
25 November 2013).
Bibliography
Anastasijevic, D. (2006) ‘Organized Crime in the Western Balkans’, available online at:
www.humsec.eu/cms/fileadmin/user_upload/humsec/Working_Paper_Series/Working_
Paper_Anastasijevic.pdf (accessed 19 November 2012).
Bailes, A.J.K. (2008) ‘Does a Small State Need a Strategy?’, University of Iceland, avail-
able online at: http://stofnanir.hi.is/ams/sites/files/ams/Bailes_Final_0.pdf (accessed 19
November 2012).
Balkan Monitor (2010) ‘Insights and Perceptions: Voices of the Balkans – Summary of
Findings’, Gallup, available online at: www.balkan-monitor.eu/files/BalkanMonitor-
2010_Summary_of_Findings.pdf (accessed 19 November 2012).
146 V. Samardžija and S. Šelo Šabić
Banja Luka (2011) ‘Prime Communications’, available online at: http://prime.ba
(accessed 19 November 2012).
Bartlett, W. (2010) ‘The Social Impact of the Global Economic Crisis in the Western
Balkans With a Focus on the Republic of Macedonia’, European Institute, London:
London School of Economics and Political Science.
Bechev, D. (2011) Constructing South East Europe: The Politics of Balkan Regional
Cooperation, St Antony’s Series, London: Palgrave Macmillan in Association with St
Antony’s College, Oxford.
Börzel, T. (2011) ‘When Europeanization Hits Limited Statehood: The Western Balkans
as a Test Case for the Transformative Power of Europe’, KFG working paper, Berlin:
Freie Universität Berlin.
Buzan, B. (1991) People, States and Fear: the National Security Problem in International
Relations, 2nd edition, Wheatsheaf Books.
Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM) (2012) Available online at: http://
cedem.me (accessed 19 November 2012).
Collier, P., Hoeffler, A. and Söderbom, M. (2008) ‘Post-Conflict Risks’, Journal of Peace
Research, 45(4): 461–478.
CSIS, Center for Strategic Studies and EKEM, Hellenic Centre for European Studies
(2010), ‘CSIS-EKEM Policy Report, Assessing Human Security in the Western
Balkans’, December.
Djurdjevic Lukic, S. (ed.) (2010) ‘The Media and Security Sector Reform in the Western
Balkans’, The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, available
online at: www.dcaf.ch/Publications/The-Media-and-Security-Sector-Reform-in-the-
Western-Balkans (accessed 21 November 2012).
Elbasani, A. (2008) ‘EU Enlargement in the Western Balkans: Strategies for Borrowing
and Inventing’, Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 10(3): 293–307.
EU Council of Ministers (1996) ‘Conclusions on Former Yugoslavia’, 26 February, EU
Bulletin 1/2–1996.
EU Council of Ministers (1997) ‘Conclusions on the Principle of Conditionality Govern-
ing the Development of the European Union’s Relations with Certain Countries of
South-Eastern Europe, 29 April, EU Bulletin 4–1997.
European Commission (2012a) Eurostat: Pocketbook on the Enlargement Countries,
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission (2012b) ‘Main Findings of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report
on Croatia’s State of Preparedness for EU Membership’, COM (2012) 601 final, Brus-
sels: European Commission.
European Commission (2012c) ‘Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2012–2013’,
COM (2012) 600 final, Brussels: European Commission, available online at: http://
ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy- and-progress- report/index_en.htm
(accessed 11 November 2012).
European Commission (2013) ‘Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council: Monitoring Report on Croatia’s Accession Preparations’,
COM (2013) 171 final, Brussels: European Commission.
Europol SOCTA (EU Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment) (2013) ‘2013
Report’, European Police Office.
Gallup, Balkan Monitor (2010) ‘Insights and Perceptions: Voices of the Balkans’, 2010
Summary Findings available online at: www.balkan-monitor.eu (accessed 10
November 2012).
Grdešić, M. (2009) ‘The Problem of Weak States and Weak Societies in Eastern Europe’
(in Croatian), Anali Hrvatskog politološkog društva.
Security challenges in the Western Balkans 147
High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2012) ‘Report to the UN Security
Council’, 13 November 2012, available online at: www.ohr.int/ohr-dept/presso/pressr/
default.asp?content_id=47619 (accessed 15 November 2012).
Hopkins, V. and Hadžović, E. (2011) ‘Sarajevo Gunman in Custody, Officials Condemn
Attack’, Balkan Insight, 28 October 2011, available online at: www.balkaninsight.com/
en/article/shooting-at-us-embassy-to-bosnia-and-herzegovina (accessed 15 November
2012).
Horvat, V. (ed.) (2009) ‘Issue Paper on EU Policy toward the Western Balkans –
Regional Perspective, Case studies – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia,
Kosovo’, Prague: Heinrich Boll Stiftung Office, available online at: www.ba.boell.org/
downloads/hbs-brochure-western-balkan.pdf (accessed 21 November 2012).
Howard, R.D. and Traughber, C.M. (2008) ‘The “New Silk Road” of Terrorism and
Organized Crime: The Key to Countering the Terror-Crime Nexus’, in Norwitz, J.H.
(ed.) Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism and Counterinsur-
gency, Newport, RI: Naval War College, pp. 371–387.
Jano, D. (2009) ‘How Legacies of the Past and Weakness of the State brought Violent
Dissolution and Disorder to the Western Balkan States’, Journal of Peace, Conflict and
Development, 14.
Jović, D. (2011) ‘Croatian Foreign Policy Facing the Challenges of EU Membership’ (in
Croatian), Politička misao, 48(2): 7–36.
Karajkov, R. (2012) ‘Macedonia: Is It Terrorism?’, 11 June 2012, available online at:
www.balcanicaucaso.org/eng/Regions-and-countries/Macedonia/Macedonia-Is-It-
Terrorism-118381 (accessed 15 November 2012).
Kostovicova, D. (2007) ‘State Weakness in the Western Balkans as a Security Threat:
The European Union: Approach and a Global Perspective’, in Serbia 2007 – Liberal
Transformation or Prolonged Transition, Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP),
pp. 10–15.
Minić, J. (2009) ‘A Decade of Regional Cooperation in SEE – Sharing Guidance, Leader-
ship and Ownership’, in Dialogues, Ownership for Regional Cooperation in the
Western Balkans Countries, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Moustakis, F. (2004) ‘Soft Security Threats in the New Europe: the Case of the Balkan
Region’, European Security, 13(1): 39–56.
Regional Cooperation Council (2011) ‘Western Balkans and Europe 2020 – Supporting
Convergence and Growth: Regional Coordination Conference. Survey of Regional Ini-
tiatives and Task Forces in South East Europe – Summary Findings’, Brussels:
Regional Cooperation Council.
Regional Cooperation Council (2011–2012) ‘Annual Report of the Secretary General of
the RCC on Regional Co-operation in SEE’, Sarajevo: Regional Cooperation Council.
Rice, S.E. and Patrick, S. (2008) ‘Index of State Weakness in the Developing World’,
The Brookings Institution, available online at: www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/
files/reports/2008/2/weak%20states%20index/02_weak_states_index.pdf (accessed 20
November, 2012).
Rincon, A., Ramos, L.E. and Estevez, L. (2006) ‘Soft-security Within the Euro-
Mediterranean Partnership’, Go-EuroMed working paper no. 0611, available online at:
www.go-euromed.org/documents/working_paper/Go-EuroMed_WP_0611_Spain_on_
Security.pdf (accessed 12 November, 2012).
SIPRI Military Expenditure Database (1988–2011) ‘Military Expenditures by Country as
a share (%) of gross domestic product (GDP), 1988–2010’, available online at: www.
sipri.org/databases/milex/ (accessed 12 November 2012).
148 V. Samardžija and S. Šelo Šabić
Sopinska, J. (2009) ‘Western Balkans: Risk of instability’, Europolitics, 30 April, avail-
able online at: www.europolitics.info/dossiers/enlargement/western-balkans-risk-of-
instability-art212350–96.html (accessed 21 November, 2012).
Stojarová, V. (2007) ‘Organized Crime in the Western Balkans’, Human Security in the
Western Balkans (HUMSEC), 1, Graz, Austrai: European Training and Research
Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (ETC), pp. 91–114.
Stubbs, P. and Solioz, C. (eds) (2012) Towards Open Regionalism in South East Europe.
Baden Baden: Nomos Veralsgellgschaft.
Thorhallson, B. and Wivel, A. (2006) ‘Small States in the European Union: What Do We
Know and What Would We Like to Know?’, Cambridge Review of International
Affairs, 19(4): 651–668.
Trauner, F. (2009) ‘EU Internal Security Policies in the Western Balkans: Analysing the
Intersection Between Enlargement and Civilian Crisis Management’, paper presented
to the 11th Biennial International Conference of the European Union Studies Associ-
ation, Los Angeles, USA, available online at: http://aei.pitt.edu/33147/1/trauner._
florian.pdf (accessed 15 November, 2012).
Vrajolli, M. and Kallaba P. (2012) Kosovo’s Path towards the NATO Partnership for
Peace (PfP) Programme, Priština: Kosovar Center for Security Studies.
Wivel, A. (2005) ‘The Security Challenge of Small EU Member states: Interests, Identity
and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor, Journal of Common Market
Studies, 43(2): 393–412.
Woehrel, S. (2005) ‘Islamic Terrorism and the Balkans’, Congressional Research Service
Report for Congress, available online at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33012.pdf
(accessed 15 November, 2012).
9 Georgia and Moldova
Caught in the outskirts of Europe?
Ruxandra Lupu Dinesen and Anders Wivel
Introduction
The collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 led to the creation of fifteen
newly independent states that needed to formulate foreign and security policies
allowing them to meet the challenges of a new international system and a trans-
formed geopolitical environment. The dominance of the Moscow-based Soviet
regime over the rest of the Soviet Union, combined with the Cold War between
the two superpowers, had effectively ‘overlaid’ other conflicts and thereby domi-
nated the security agenda for 45 years (Buzan 1991). Now, with the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, the overlay was lifted and security challenges were diffused
and diversified, with old or new ethnic, religious, ideological, and economic
divisions serving as the basis for conflict. At the global level the political and
military balance of power was transformed, leaving the world ‘off-balance’ with
the United States as the only superpower (Walt 2002).
Not surprisingly, the post-Soviet states encountered serious difficulties as
they entered a period of transition, adjustment and restructuring in all political
sectors, whilst simultaneously witnessing a dramatic drop in economic perform-
ance. Their GDP fell on average between 40 and 50 per cent during the first five
years of independence. Post-Soviet states faced the entire spectrum of the small
state security challenges identified in Chapter 2: namely challenges related to
military hard security, non-state violence, economic security, and accidents and
natural hazards (in particular related to environmental degradation). In addition,
as newly independent states, they typically lacked the official structures for
security policy assessment, decision-making and execution that are identified in
Chapter 2 as key factors for meeting these security challenges. Even 20 years
after independence, many of these states are still in the process of developing
such procedures and are facing the challenge of attracting qualified personnel for
key positions.
Security challenges, as well as the ability to meet them vary, significantly
across the post-Soviet space. Most importantly, and in accordance with the
editors’ definition of a small state in Chapter 1, security challenges vary to the
extent that post-Soviet states are the weaker party in an asymmetric relation-
ship.1 Thus, the Russian Federation typically faces a different set of challenges
150 R. Lupu Dinesen and A. Wivel
from those of Moldova or Georgia, and a different choice of political, economic
and military instruments when attempting to respond to those challenges. The
absolute and relative size of territory, population and the economy, military
expenditure and political and administrative competence (Waltz 1979; Chapter 1
in this volume), as well as geopolitical location and opportunities for institu-
tional membership and influence (Mouritzen and Wivel 2005a), all affect the
nature and extent of power asymmetries and their effect on small state security.
Taking this point of departure, our analysis explores the security challenges
of two small post-Soviet states, the Republic of Moldova2 and Georgia. Located
in the outskirts of Europe, Moldova and Georgia face some of the security chal-
lenges typically encountered by states outside the highly stable and institutional-
ized European security order, while at the same time aiming explicitly to become
members of that order. The chapter explains and compares the way that each of
them has responded to these challenges, and discusses what policy lessons may
be learned.
may not be conceived separately from the European security. The process of
European integration and acquiring of EU membership will positively influ-
ence and consolidate the security of the Republic of Moldova and will bring
stability and prosperity to the country.
(National Security Strategy of Moldova 2011: 25)
154 R. Lupu Dinesen and A. Wivel
Moldova’s pro-European position dates back to the early 1990s, but has been
emphasized only since the late 2000s. Soon after its independence, Moldova
declared that its future belonged to Europe and its successive governments have
stressed their wish to join the Union. Moldovans are the most pro-EU citizens
among the neighbourhood countries (CIVIS 2011: 122). This attitude was espe-
cially cemented after an election crisis in 2009, when the Alliance for European
Integration (AEI) came to power. Since then, the Moldovan government has
shown a far-reaching willingness to comply with all EU norms and requirements
concerning democratization, and has often initiated reforms in strategic areas
even before receiving a request from the EU to do so (Niemann and de Wekker
2010: 26–27; authors’ interview with Moldovan official).
The strategy has seemingly paid off, as the EU has acknowledged the pro-
gress of Moldovan reforms. However, the changing geopolitical landscape of
Europe has played a role as well. After Romania’s accession to the EU, the latter
recognized Moldova’s strategic role in efforts to create stability at the Union’s
borders. Illegal migration, trafficking and the presence of a frozen conflict,
together with the positive attitude towards European integration from the
Moldovan side, provided strong reasons for intensifying cooperation with this
small country. In addition, the failure of Ukraine’s democratization after the
‘Orange Revolution’ has created a demand for other success stories in EU neigh-
bourhood policy. In recent years, Moldova’s political reforms and soft security
strategy have placed the country in a favourable position to meet this demand
(Boostra 2011: 1–5); so much so, that Moldova is coming to be viewed as a
litmus test of EU influence in the region.
The relationship between the EU and Moldova changed substantially after the
launch of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in 2004, following the big
enlargement of the EU with ten new member states. An Action Plan was signed
in 2005, and the EU increased its presence in Moldova by opening a full Euro-
pean Commission Delegation and by appointing an EU Special Representative
for Moldova. The EU has increased its financial support to Moldova from €40
million in 2007 to €122 million in 2012 (Delegation of the European Union to
Moldova 2013). Also, an EU Border Mission was deployed at the Moldovan–
Ukrainian border to prevent illegal traffic. After the change in government in
2009, negotiations over an advanced Association Agreement (AA) were opened
and included talks on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement
(DCFTA). Even more important, the EU has offered visa liberalization, which
will eventually lead to a visa-free regime, thereby easing the Moldovan feeling
of isolation after the accession of Central European countries to the EU (Boostra
2011: 2). At the moment of writing, July 2013, the negotiations on the Free
Trade Agreement have been completed and both the AA and the DCFTA are
expected to be initialled at the Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit in November
2013 (Council of the European Union 2013). Romania has had an important role
in this development, as the most outspoken supporter of Moldova’s European
path and one of the driving forces in the European integration process (author’s
interviews with Romanian diplomats and politicians).
Georgia and Moldova 155
Approaching the EU has not ameliorated relations with Russia, which sees its
interests lying in the status quo. It has only shown willingness to accept a peace
agreement for the Transnistrian conflict under conditions that are extremely
favourable for its own geopolitical interests, i.e. that it can keep its ‘peacekeep-
ing’ troops and ammunition in Transnistria, and that the political outcome should
be ‘federalization’ (Socor 2012: 5). The importance of Transnistria was emphas-
ised by Russia in March 2012 by the appointment of a special Presidential envoy
for Transnistria, Dmitry Rogozin, thereby (among other things) signalling disap-
proval of Moldova’s continuing rapprochement with the EU (Socor 2012: 3).8
Conclusion
The security challenges of Moldova and Georgia are likely to continue in the
years to come. In the short- and mid-term perspective, the probability that
Moldova will remain a source of instability in the region is rather high. Even
if a formal solution is found to the conflict in Transnistria, that region’s re-
integration into Moldova proper is likely to be costly and tense, with potential
repercussions for Moldova as well as its neighbours (Cebotari and Xenofontov
2011: 32–33). In general, Moldova has little choice but to follow the advice of
the EU on political and societal reform as closer relations with the EU, and
eventually EU membership, remain the nation’s best bet for security and
stability in the future. For Georgia the challenges are even greater. Located in
the Caucasus, and viewed by Georgians themselves, as well as by Russia and
the United States, as a symbol of the spread of Western values into the heart
of the Russian sphere of interest – as well as a concrete challenge to Russian
energy interests – there is little reason to believe that Russia will allow
Georgia to enter the Euro-Atlantic institutional structures of the EU and
NATO. Even worse for the Georgians, the 2008 war illustrated that neither the
US nor the EU are willing to put their relations with Russia at risk for the sake
of Georgian security.
162 R. Lupu Dinesen and A. Wivel
At the same time, both countries face two fundamental dilemmas. First, like
other small states with little short-term prospect of membership of Euro-Atlantic
institutions, Moldova and Georgia face a dilemma between subjugation and
obsolescence (Mouritzen and Wivel 2005c: 34). If they stand firm on preserving
national autonomy, they risk being viewed as obsolescent by the leading member
states of the EU and NATO. The implications were brutally clear for Georgia in
the 2008 war, when military confrontation with Russia ran counter to the inter-
ests of the United States and the European powers. Conversely, however, eager-
ness to please in order to obtain institutional membership may lead to
subjugation, risking the sacrifice of core national interests. For both Moldova
and Georgia, one vital but difficult task in the years to come will be to define the
‘red lines’ that they are not willing to cross in order to obtain membership of EU
and NATO, and to signal these red lines to the leading members of the institu-
tions without forfeiting the prospect of membership.
A second, and potentially more severe, dilemma is related to the political
identity of the state in general: Which values serve as the legitimate base for
policy making? The EU and NATO are populated with post-modern states that
accept multi-level decision-making and overlapping political authorities and
identities as a basis for policy making, resulting in collective support for a glo-
balized economy and political and military interventions. In contrast, Moldova
and Georgia share with Russia and other post-Soviet states a more traditionalist
‘modern’ view of policy making, based on centralized administrative, police and
military institutions and the persistence of national authority in economic and
security affairs.14 If these states really want sustainable solutions for their
national economic and security interests, they may, in the future, need to accept
a post-modern way of doing politics, with all the risks that this entails for states
not only smaller but also less consolidated than those who set the agenda in the
EU and NATO.
Notes
1 The editors’ definition of small states identifies a small state as ‘the weaker part in an
asymmetric relationship, unable to change the nature or functioning of the relation-
ship on its own’ (see Chapter 1 of this volume).
2 Called Moldova in the rest of the chapter.
3 World Bank estimate, see www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/04/10/moldova-
economic-update (accessed 10 April 2013).
4 IMF World Economic Outlook Database for 2012, available online at: www.quandl.
com/economics/gdp-per-capita-all-countries (accessed 15 November 2012).
5 There are different spellings of Transnistria, such as Transdniestria or Trans-Dniestr.
Nevertheless, Transnistria is the most commonly used name internationally, and is the
one followed here.
6 Bessarabia is the name of one of the historical provinces of Romania and corresponds
to the territory of the current Republic of Moldova, without the province of
Transnistria.
7 See also the European Internal Security Strategy, available online at: http://europa.eu/
legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_organised_crime/
r00004_en.htm (accessed 15 April 2013).
Georgia and Moldova 163
8 Neither the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), nor GUAM (created in 1997
and short for the grouping of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) has had any
significant influence on Moldova’s foreign policy. The members of CIS have had
interests that were too divergent and Russia has lost interest in the CIS, partly because
of its diminishing importance for Russia’s economy. At the same time, GUAM has
been very weak, with Russia doing everything it can to prevent its members from sub-
stantive security cooperation (Papava 2008: 50) – see also p. 159.
9 For a more comprehensive account of Georgian security history up to the 2008 war,
on which this brief summary is based, see Mouritzen and Wivel (2012: 9–16).
10 As one analyst noted of the first few years after the Rose Revolution, ‘Tbilisi’s over-
arching strategy seems quite coherent in retrospect. Tbilisi’s understanding was that
the status quo prevailing since the early 1990s needed to be altered, should the con-
flicts ever approach solutions’ (Nilsson 2009: 94).
11 The democracy score for Moldova was 5 in 2008 and 4.89 in 2012; for Georgia, the score
was 4.79 in 2008 and 4.82 in 2012. The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 rep-
resenting the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. See, www.freedom-
house.org/sites/default/files/2012%20%20NIT%20Tables.pdf (accessed accessed 23
August 2012); www.freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2008/Moldova (accessed
accessed 23 August 2012); and www.freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/2008/
Georgia (accessed 23 August 2012). The Democracy Score (DS) is an average of ratings
for Electoral Process (EP); Civil Society (CS); Independent Media (IM); National Demo-
cratic Governance (NGOV); Local Democratic Governance (LGOV); Judicial Frame-
work and Independence (JFI); and Corruption (CO).
12 Moldova’s ratings in 2007 compared with 2012 were as follows: civil society (CV)
3.75 vs. 3.5; independent media (IM) 5.25 vs 5.0; national democratic governance
(NDG) 5.75 vs. 5.50. Georgia’s ratings in 2007 compared with 2012: CS 3.50 vs.
3.75; IM 4.0 vs. 4.25; NDG 5.50 vs. 5.75. See: www.freedomhouse.org/report/nations-
transit/2007/Moldova (accessed 23 August 2012); www.freedomhouse.org/report/
nations-transit/2007/Georgia (accessed 23 August 2012).
13 Memorandum signed at a meeting between Chancellor Angela Merkel and President
Dmitri Medvedev on 4 and 5 June 2010 in Meseberg, Germany. It proposed a joint
approach by the EU and Russia to resolve the conflict, including the setting up of a
joint Political and Security Committee (EU-R-PSC) at minister level. Transnistria
thereby became a test-case for future EU cooperation with Russia.
14 See Sørensen (2001) for the general distinction.
Bibliography
Arter, D. (2000) ‘Small State Influence within the EU: The Case of Finland’s Northern
Dimension Initiative’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5): 677–697.
Boostra, J. (2011) ‘Moldova: An EU Success History?’, Policy Brief, 92, FRIDE.
Buzan, Barry (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda For International Security
Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. 2nd edition, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Buzan, B., Kelstrup, M., Lemaitre, P., Tromer, E. and Wæver, O. (1990) The European
Security Order Recast: Scenarios for the Post-Cold War Europe, London: Pinter.
Cebotari, S. (2010) ‘The Republic of Moldova between Neutrality and NATO Member-
ship Status’, Postmodern Openings, 1(3): 83–91.
Cebotari, S. and Xenofontov, I. (2011) ‘The Republic of Moldova in the Context of the
European Security System’, Postmodern Openings, 2(6): 23–35.
Cheterian, V.(2009) ‘The August 2008 War in Georgia: From Ethnic Conflict to Border
Wars’, Central Asian Survey, 28(2): 155–170.
164 R. Lupu Dinesen and A. Wivel
Chifu, I. (2007) ‘Moldova between East and West’, in Quo Vadis Moldova?, European
Integration Study Centre (Lithuania) and Institute for Development and Social Initi-
atives ‘Viitorul’ (Moldova), Lviv: Multi-M., pp. 35–40.
Cooley, A. and Mitchell, L. (2009) ‘No Way to Treat Our Friends: Recasting Recent
U.S.–Georgian Relations’, Washington Quarterly, 32(1): 27–41.
Civil Georgia (2010a) ‘Saakashvili Wants U.S. to Help with Defensive Arms’, September
12, available online at: www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22662 (accessed 19 July
2013).
Civil Georgia (2010b) ‘Georgia Makes “Unilateral Pledge” of Non-Use of Force’,
November 23, available online at: www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=22880 (accessed
19 July 2013).
Civil Georgia (2013a) ‘Rasmussen on Georgia’s NATO Integration’, 27 June 2013, avail-
able online at: www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=26217 (accessed 19 July 2013).
Civil Georgia (2013b) ‘Azerbaijani, Georgian, Turkish FMs Pledge Closer Ties’, 28
March, available online at: www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=25903 (accessed 19 July
2013).
CIVIS (The Centre of Sociological, Politological and Psychological Analysis and Investiga-
tions) (2011) Public Opinion Barometer of the Republic of Moldova 2011, available
online at: http://civis.md/Archive/Brosura_BOP_05.2011_prima%20parte.pdf (accessed
19 July 2013).
Constitution of the Republic of Moldova (no date) Available online at: www.presedinte.
md/const.php?lang=eng (accessed 12 December 2012).
Council of the European Union (2013) ‘EU – Republic of Moldova Cooperation Council
Fifteenth Meeting’, Luxembourg 25 June 2013, 11472/13 (Presse 290), available online
at: www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/137612.pdf (accessed
9 July 2013).
Delegation of the European Union to Moldova (2013) ‘EU-Moldova Relations: basic
facts’, available online at: http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/moldova/eu_moldova/
index_en.htm, accessed 9 July 2013.
Emerson, M. and Vahl, M. (2004) ‘Moldova and the Transnistrian Conflict’, in Coppie-
ters, B., Europeanization and Conflict Resolution: Case Studies from the European
Periphery, Ghent: Academia Press, pp. 1–29.
Gabanyi, A.U. (2008) ‘The Republic of Moldova and NATO – an Ambiguous Relation-
ship’, in Security Policy Library 3, Oslo: Den Norske Atlanterhavskomité.
Gahrton, P. (2010) Georgia: Pawn in the New Great Game, London: Pluto Press.
Gordadze, T. (2009) ‘Georgian-Russian Relations in the 1990s’, in Cornell, S.E. and
Starr, F.S. (eds), The Guns of August 2008: Russia’s War in Georgia, New York: M.E.
Sharpe, pp. 28–48.
Hamilton, R. (2010) ‘The Bear came through the Tunnel: An Analysis of Georgian Plan-
ning and Operations in the Russo-Georgian War and Implications for U.S. Policy’, in
Rich, P.B. (ed.), Crisis in the Caucasus: Russia, Georgia and the West, Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 202–234.
Jervis, R. (1978) ‘Cooperation under the Security Dilemma’, World Politics 30: 167–214.
Jakobsen, P.V. (2009) ‘Small States, Big Influence: The Overlooked Nordic Influence on
the Civilian ESDP’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 47(1): 81–102.
Jones, J.L. (2005) ‘Statement of General James L. Jones, USMC Commander, United
States European Command before the Senate Armed Service Committee in March 1,
2005’, available online at: http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2005/March/
Jones%2003–01–05.pdf (accessed 9 December 2012).
Georgia and Moldova 165
King, C. (2000) The Moldovans. Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture, Stanford
University: Hoover Institution Press.
Löwenhardt, J., Hill, R. and Light, M. (2001) ‘A Wider Europe: The View from Minsk
and Chisinau’, International Affairs, 77(3): 605–620.
Lynch, D. (2006) Why Georgia Matters, Chaillot paper 86, Paris: Institute for Security
Studies.
Marcu, S. (2009) ‘The Geopolitics of the Eastern Border of the European Union: The
Case of Romania–Moldova–Ukraine’, Geopolitics, 14(3): 409–432.
Mouritzen, H. (1997) External Danger and Democracy: Old Nordic Lessons and New
European Challenges, Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (eds) (2005a), The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration,
London: Routledge.
Mouritzen, H, and Wivel, A. (2005b) ‘Introduction’, in Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (eds)
The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration, London: Routledge.
Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (2005c) ‘Constellation Theory’, in Mouritzen, H. and Wivel,
A. (eds) The Geopolitics of Euro-Atlantic Integration, London: Routledge.
Mouritzen, H. and Wivel, A. (2012) Explaining Foreign Policy: International Diplomacy
and the Russo-Georgian War, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Munteanu, I. (2002) ‘Social Multipolarity and Political Violence’, in Kolstø, P. (ed.)
National Integration and violent Conflict in Post-Soviet Societies. The Cases of Estonia
and Moldova, Lanham, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 197–227.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2013) ‘NATO Enlargement’, available online at:
www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm (accessed 7 June 2013).
Neumann, I.B. and Gstöhl, S. (2006) ‘Introduction: Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World?’, in
Ingebritsen, C., Neumann, I.B. and Gstöhl, S. (eds) Small States in International Rela-
tions, Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 3–36.
Nichol, J. (2008) ‘Russia–Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context and Implications
for U.S. Interests’, 24 October, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Nichol, J. (2013) ‘Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and
Implications for U.S. Interests’, report for Congress, Washington, DC: Congressional
Research Service, 24 January.
Niemann, A. and de Wekker. T. (2010) ‘Normative Power Europe? EU Relations with
Moldova’, European Integration online papers (EIoP), 14(14), available online at: http://
eiop.or.at/eiop/index.php/eiop/article/view/2010_014a/189 (accessed 3 April 2011).
Nilsson, N. (2009) ‘Georgia’s Rose Revolution: The Break with the Past’, in Cornell, S.E.
and Starr, F.S. (eds) The Guns of August 2008: Russia’s War in Georgia, Armonk,
New York: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 85–103.
Pantiru, M., Black. R. and Sabates Wheeler, R. (2007) ‘Migration and Poverty Reduction
in Moldova’, working paper C10, Development Research Centre on Migration, Glo-
balisation and Poverty, Falmer: University of Sussex.
Papava, V. (2008) ‘On the Role of the “Caucasian Tandem” in GUAM’, Central Asia and
the Caucasus, 3–4(51–52): 47–55.
Pintea, I., Helly, D. and Pananainte, P. (2011) Prospects for Moldova’s Cooperation within
the Common Security and Defence Policy, Soros Foundation Moldova, Chisinau.
Roper, S. (2008) ‘Post-Soviet Moldova’s National Identity and Foreign Policy’, in
Schmidtke, O. and Yekelchyk, S. (eds) Europe’s Last Frontier? Belarus, Moldova, and
Ukraine between Russia and the European Union, New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
pp. 79–97.
166 R. Lupu Dinesen and A. Wivel
Sanchez, A. (2009) ‘The “Frozen” Southeast: How the Moldova–Transnistria Question
has Become a European Geo-Security Issue’, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 22(2):
153–176.
Sasse, G. (2010) ‘The ENP and the EU’s Eastern Neighbours: Ukraine and Moldova as
Test Cases’, in Whitman R. and Wolff, S. (eds) The European Neighbourhood Policy
in Perspective, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 181–205.
Socor, V. (2012) ‘Russia Multiplies Conditions for Conflict-Resolution in Moldova’,
Eurasia Daily Monitor, 9(145).
Sørensen, G. (2001) Changes in Statehood, Houndmills: Palgrave.
Staun, J. (2009) ‘Den georgiske beslutningsproces’, in Mouritzen, H., Møller, K.J. and
Staun, J. (eds) ‘Krigen i Kaukasus 2008: Baggrund, dynamik og international per-
spektiver’, DIIS working paper: 7–17.
Tsygankov, A.P. and Tarver-Wahlquist, M. (2009) ‘Duelling Honors: Realism, Construc-
tivism and the Russia-Georgia Divide’, Foreign Policy Analysis, 5(4): 307–326.
Tudoroiu, T. (2012) ‘The European Union, Russia, and the Future of the Transnistrian
Conflict’, East European Politics and Societies, 26(1): 135–161.
Vahl, M. and Emerson, M. (2004) ‘Moldova and the Transnistrian Conflict’, in Coppie-
ters, B. (ed.) Europeanization and Conflict Resolution. Case studies from the European
Periphery. Ghent: Academia Press, pp. 1–29.
Villarroel, E. (2005) Moldova: The Quest for Balance, Jagiellonian University in Krakow:
Centre for European Studies.
Waal, T. de (2011) Georgia’s Choices: Charting a Future in Uncertain Times, Washing-
ton, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Walt, S. M. (2002) ‘Keeping the World “Off-Balance”: Self-Restraint and U.S. Foreign
Policy’, in Ikenberry, G.J. (ed.) America Unrivalled, Ithaca and London: Cornelle Uni-
versity Press, pp. 121–154.
Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wivel, A. (2005) ‘The Security Challenge of Small EU Member States: Interests, Identity
and the Development of the EU as a Security Actor’, Journal of Common Market
Studies, 43(2): 393–412.
Yekelchyk, S. (2008) ‘Out of Russia’s Long Shadow: The Making of Modern Ukraine,
Belarus, and Moldova’, in Schmidtke, O. and Yekelchyk, S., Europe’s Last Frontier?
Belarus, Moldova, and Ukraine between Russia and the European Union, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 10–28.
10 The security of the European
micro-states
Archie W. Simpson
It is apparent that the token of success of the European micro-states has so far
been their ability to neutralise the limitations stemming from their distinctive
geographic, social and economic attributes, and to turn these potentially negative
characteristics to their advantage in the international playing field.
(Dózsa 2008: 95)
Introduction
The study of the European micro-states is unfamiliar to many scholars and stu-
dents of international relations because the former are very small, have very little
power, offer no significant threat to others and are often viewed as being some-
what anachronistic. The micro-states are usually seen as being insignificant
members of the international community because of their diminutive size and
are often overlooked as objects of serious study. However, upon a closer look
they are quite fascinating and offer new insights into international politics. To
illustrate this takes a few interesting facts: San Marino is the oldest Republic in
the world with a history stretching back to 301 AD; the tiny Pyrenean state of
Andorra has two heads of state, namely the President of France and the Bishop
of Urgell; Monaco has the world’s highest population density due to its urban
setting; and the smallest state in the world is the Vatican City State, which coin-
cidently, is also host to the world’s biggest institution, the Roman Catholic
Church, with between 1.3 and two billion followers. There is much to be gleaned
by exploring the European micro-states and this chapter will highlight some of
the security issues associated with these very small polities.
Using a simple population threshold of one million people allows 44 sover-
eign micro-states1 to be identified in the international community and ten of
these are in Europe. They are Andorra, Cyprus, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxem-
bourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino and the Vatican City State
(sometimes also referred to as the Holy See). Each has a distinct security
dilemma, unique history and engagement with international politics. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 1, using absolute criteria in defining states by their size is
highly problematic and can be contested; there is no consensus concerning what
constitutes a ‘small state’ or indeed a ‘micro-state’. The European micro-states
have very little power in the international system, have very narrow policy
168 A.W. Simpson
options, fewer interests, have little say in international politics and are con-
sequently vulnerable to outside pressures. Additionally, the micro-states are
always the weaker party in any asymmetric relationship with other states – with
the possible exception of the Vatican, depending on the issue at hand. Nairn
(1997) suggests that the small ‘scale’ of the micro-states undermines their capa-
city to act in international politics.
The European micro-states are a disparate collection of states, as some are
islands, some are landlocked, some are former colonies, some have existed for
centuries, many are democracies, while some are not true democracies. For all,
however, their smallness in size permeates into all aspects of politics, both
domestically and in terms of foreign policy and economic policy. The smallness
of the micro-states limits them in terms of capabilities, restricts policy options,
reduces diplomatic representation, increases their vulnerabilities especially eco-
nomically, and places particular pressures on their national security.
This chapter will first address definitional issues, including some problems
and criteria used in defining micro-states. It will then give brief descriptions of
the European micro-states, in order to establish who they are. The main common
characteristics and key features of micro-states will be identified, including the
varying levels of democracy. The chapter will then run through some relevant
issues relating to micro-state security, including military issues, other security
topics and economic strategies.
Definitions
As stressed in Chapter 1, and as Maass writes, ‘no consensus-definition of the
small state has yet emerged, despite an abundance of characterizations, ration-
ales and proposed definitions’ (2009: 65). Aside from the many quantitative,
qualitative and subjective features proposed by various authors, defining small
states or micro-states inherently involves a relative dynamic: State A is small
when compared to State B, as discussed in Chapter 1. This means that ‘ulti-
mately a judgmental element must creep into the exercise of categorising states
by size’ (Archer and Nugent, 2002: 5). Moreover, the question of definition is
sometimes complicated by the language used. A number of terms including
‘small states’, ‘small nations’, ‘weak states’, ‘small powers’, ‘minor powers’ and
‘small countries’ are commonly found in literature and may be used interchange-
ably by scholars and decision-makers. Yet, these terms may have different con-
notations and clarity is important, not least when distinguishing small states from
micro-states. Correctly expressed, micro-states are a sub-field of small state
studies; they are, in simple terms, very small states.
Whilst there is no agreed consensus as to what constitutes a ‘small state’,
there is a greater amount of agreement among scholars regarding the definition
of ‘micro-states’. The Scandinavian political scientist, Dag Anckar (1998,
2002, and 2004) argues that the usual criterion for defining micro-states is a
population of less than one million people. Others who have used this yard-
stick include Harden (1985), Sutton and Payne (1993), Warrington (1994),
The security of the European micro-states 169
Christopher (2002) and Simpson (2008). There are, however, other competing
definitions including that of Ali Naseer Mohamed (2002), who suggests that
1.5 million people is the threshold; Plischke (1977), who suggests that micro-
states have populations of under 100,000 or between 100,000 and 300,000;
and Armstrong and Read (1995; 2003; also Armstrong et al., 1998), who
define micro-states as having populations of three million or less. Plischke
(1977) suggested that membership of the United Nations (UN) was also
important in the definition of micro-states. When he wrote this, a number of
European micro-states, specifically Andorra, San Marino and Monaco, were
excluded from his list as they were not UN member states; but since the end
of the Cold War all three have joined the UN. Wivel and Oest argue that
micro-states are, ‘permanently stuck as the weak party in asymmetric relation-
ships internationally and therefore forced to adopt strategies that cope with the
permanency of their weakness’ (Wivel and Oest 2010: 434).
For the purpose of this chapter, three criteria will be used to define micro-
states. The first is that they are sovereign: namely, they fulfil the criteria of legal
statehood as established by the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and
Duties of States. Article 1 of the Convention sets down four criteria:
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qual-
ifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
(1933 Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States, Article 1)
Characteristics of micro-states
The micro-states of Europe are very small, both in terms of territory and in terms
of population. They thus have few natural resources (except in a few cases),
smaller working populations, smaller domestic markets, small governments and
small bureaucracies. Smallness permeates into all aspects of public life and pol-
itics. For example, unicameral parliaments are the norm for the European micro-
states, with Andorra having 28 parliamentary representatives and Montenegro
having 81 (see table 10.1). Governments are often also small, with Liechtenstein
having a government of five members (plus the Prince) and Iceland ten members
(plus the President).
The political and economic elites of the micro-states know each other well, as
there are so few of them. In the Principalities of Liechtenstein and Monaco, this
is particularly true. The Royal family in Liechtenstein owns many of the banks
Andorra 28 Co-Principality/democratic
Cyprus 56 Republic/democratic
Iceland 63 Republic/democratic
Liechtenstein 25 Principality/semi-democratic
Luxembourg 60 Grand Duchy/democratic
Malta 65 Republic/democratic
Monaco 24 Principality/democratic
Montenegro 81 Republic/democratic
San Marino 60 Republic/democratic
Vatican City – Theocracy/non-democratic
Sources: Various, including BBC, CIA World Factbook, and national websites (all accessed in
2012).
Notes
Andorra has two heads of state; Liechtenstein underwent constitutional changes in 2002 giving the
Prince wider powers to dismiss parliament and government; in Montenegro an MP shall be elected
for every 6,000 voters; and the only voting in the Vatican is via a conclave to elect a new Pope.
174 A.W. Simpson
that provide the Principality’s main source of wealth and prosperity; and the
Prince of Monaco owns much of Monaco. A small, ruling elite usually means
improved communications, fewer political barriers and less bureaucratic wran-
gling. However, it may also lead towards incestuous and dysfunctional politics,
as perhaps illustrated by the banking collapse in Iceland in 2008, in which
bankers and politicians were too closely aligned. For Dag Anckar (2003), the
smallness of the micro-states also contributes to a tendency towards democracy.
However, it could also be said that many of the micro-states in Europe have
anachronistic political institutions, such as San Marino with its selection of its
two Captains Regent every six months; the dominance of the Prince in Liechten-
stein politics; and the unique position – and indeed election – of the Pope in the
Vatican City.
The smallness of micro-states usually means greater homogeneity in terms of
national identity and ethnicity. While citizenship in the Vatican is uniquely
based on profession rather than national identity and some micro-states such as
Andorra and Monaco have more non-citizens than citizens in residence, national
identity in the micro-states is important both in terms of societal security and in
affirming democracy. The only problematic micro-state in this regard is Cyprus.
Since the 1970s, the island has been divided, with Turkish Cypriots in the north-
ern third of the island and Greek Cypriots in the rest. The Cyprus problem is a
long-standing issue in European politics, and has not been solved by the Repub-
lic of Cyprus’ EU membership, for which the UN has sought various solutions
over decades, including the Annan Plan (UN 2004). As Sepos writes, this plan:
. . . foresaw the evolution of the Cyprus Republic into the United Republic of
Cyprus, with a different name, flag, and national anthem. Borrowing heavily
from the Swiss and Belgian federal models, it proposed the construction of
a common state with a single sovereignty, consisting of Greek-Cypriot and
Turkish-Cypriot component states, with their own legislative and executive
powers.
(Sepos 2008: 30)
While there has been a greater political dialogue between Cyprus and northern
Cyprus since the start of the millennium, the prospect of unifying the island
remains problematic.
The European micro-states have very little power globally or even within
Europe, with the Vatican City providing a certain exception to the rule. They do
occasionally become the subject of international debate and concern,6 as in
Cyprus’ case, but for the most part the micro-states remain largely insignificant
actors. Sometimes, they make material contributions to international develop-
ments such as Luxembourg’s role in shaping the EU from its foundation
onwards. As another example, in the late 1960s, the Maltese UN Ambassador,
Arvid Pardo, played a crucial role in introducing concepts and policies desig-
nating the seas and seabed as part of the ‘common heritage of mankind’, which
were incorporated into international law by 1982. Thus while limited in terms
The security of the European micro-states 175
of power and influence, as sovereign actors the micro-states have some ability
to affect international relations, often through membership of international
organizations.
Many of the European micro-states are wealthy, but they also rely on neigh-
bouring states for various forms of economic sustenance, such as imports of
foods and fuels and utilities like water and electricity. Thorhallsson (2011; see
also Alesina and Spolaore 2005) argues that small states need political and eco-
nomic ‘shelter’ from larger states and/or institutions in order to survive in the
globalized world, and this may be particularly true for micro-states.
Since the financial crash of 2008, some micro-states have suffered serious
economic worries highlighting their vulnerability when combined with risky
policy choices – most notably, Cyprus and Iceland. Some others, such as
Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Monaco, have become tax havens or
offshore financial centres to encourage both investments and wealthy residents.
These micro-states have many banks and financial services that attract billions of
dollars worth of investments (on which more below). The Vatican has enormous
wealth, much of it coming from donations by people across the world, but also
from property and banking. As the Vatican does not publish economic data,
there is much speculation about its wealth. One British newspaper, the Daily
Telegraph, reports that the Vatican has property investments worth up to €700
billion (Daily Telegraph 2011) and in addition, it has priceless artefacts and
works of art.
Luxembourg as a capital city of the EU in the heart of Western Europe, has
gained a high level of economic stability and wealth. As seen in Table 10.2, it is
noticeable that only Iceland maintains its own national currency, and debates
there since 2008 on EU membership have largely focused on whether to join the
Economic strategies
The inherent economic vulnerabilities of the micro-states in Europe have encour-
aged various economic strategies. There are some benefits in smallness for the
micro-states, including the ability to be flexible in building a market share in
niche areas like banking, communications or tourism. Yet there is always some
dependence on neighbouring states for key economic inputs, especially for the
island micro-states, while all micro-states are limited in natural resources. As
already seen, EU membership has been particularly important for some of them
as a way to encourage investment, gain access to larger markets and benefit from
policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and regional funds. As
a founding member of the European Community in 1956 and member of the
European Coal and Steel Community since 1951–1952, Luxembourg has gained
great economic benefit, building on steel and its central location to achieve the
EU’s highest GDP per capita. The two other micro-state members of the EU,
Cyprus and Malta, both joined for largely economic reasons. The free movement
The security of the European micro-states 179
of people, goods, capital and services within the EU allows them to attract new
investments, encourage further tourism and gain assistance on issues like water
quality and management. The EU has reportedly invested €151.5 million in the
Maltese road system since 2004 (Camilleri 2011), a significant amount for a
small island. For Cyprus, EU funds are important but membership might also
ease the long-term prospect of unity with the North.
Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican12 all use the euro despite not
being EU members. This is partly for historical reasons: before the euro both
San Marino and the Vatican used the Italian lira, while Monaco used the French
franc, and Andorra used both the French currency and the Spanish peseta.
However, it is also a practical device since having a separate currency is quite an
expensive aspect of economics. By participating in a currency union with other
– and stronger, larger – economies, the micro-states can free-ride and gain eco-
nomic protection as well as benefits. Liechtenstein uses the Swiss franc for
similar reasons.
As already seen, several micro-states have adopted the more controversial
economic strategy of becoming ‘offshore’ financial centres – also known as tax
havens. For Drezner (2001) the micro-states have ‘sold’ their sovereignty by
making this choice, and states like Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco have
been heavily criticized for it by the OECD. Certain EU member states, like
Malta and Luxembourg, have also adopted tax haven status in order to attract
investment. Palan writes,
In one form or another, practically every country in the world offers some
sort of haven from taxation and regulation for residents . . . what distin-
guishes tax havens . . . is that they explicitly aim to take advantage of a com-
petitive position by offering reduced regulation or capital tax.
(Palan and Abbot 1999: 169)
In essence, these micro-states adopt low levels of taxation, low levels of finan-
cial regulation and high levels of secrecy over financial matters. On the one
hand, this can be viewed as a clear and successful economic strategy to attract
inward investment. It could also be argued that the size of the micro-states
deprives them of options like mass manufacturing or agricultural production,
while tax haven status needs no special resources. However, tax havens – espe-
cially if weakly regulated – can help tax evaders, criminals and (possibly) terror-
ists, in hiding their finances. Large multinational corporations often open
accounts in states like Luxembourg or Monaco in order to offset profits and thus
pay less taxation in the states, where their profits are made. In an era of instant-
aneous capital transfers through the use of computers and the internet, moving
money to offshore financial centres becomes increasingly easier and more effi-
cient, but also more subject to abuse.13
Palan (2002: 155) identifies a number of European micro-states and other
small territories as offshore financial centres: Andorra, Cyprus, Liechtenstein,
Luxembourg, Malta and Monaco; and Gibraltar, Guernsey, Sark, Isle of Man,
180 A.W. Simpson
Jersey and Madeira. The low-tax regime in many micro-states attracts wealthy
residents – many people who live in Monaco and Andorra are multimillionaires
– which brings other, knock-on economic advantages. States like Andorra,
Monaco, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, that have followed such strategies,
have been able to attract billions of dollars, pounds and euros into their eco-
nomies in consequence. Palan (2002) reports that, according to some estimates,
‘more than half of the world’s stock of money passes through these tax havens14
. . . it is estimated that about 20 per cent of total private wealth . . . are invested
offshore’ (Palan 2002: 156).
Conclusion
The inherent smallness of the European micro-states makes them vulnerable to
outside pressures. However, they have developed a series of strategies to ensure
that they are economically viable and have the minimal capabilities of statehood.
For some micro-states, this means becoming offshore financial centres; for others it
means participation in European integration; but all rely on an open economy to
trade with the world and encourage inward investments. The development of inter-
national law throughout the twentieth century and international organizations such
as the United Nations, European Union and NATO, coupled with friendly relations
with neighbours, have guaranteed the survival of these Lilliputian states. Smallness
also contributes to micro-state security by making them less threatening to others,
by limiting the resources that others might want to take from them and by making
them strategically insignificant. By being good neighbours to larger states, micro-
states usually manage to avoid conflict – though with notable exceptions such as
the Cod Wars between Iceland and Britain, as well as Cyprus’ fate. Domestic
factors such as democracy, national identity, good governance and economic via-
bility are also essential elements in the security of the European micro-states. In the
end, economics is probably the central security issue for these entities as it under-
pins their viability as states, contributes to government capabilities and ensures
domestic economic security for their people.
Notes
1 A dictionary definition of ‘micro’ means ‘extremely small’, ‘minute in scope or cap-
ability’ and it also means importantly, ‘a millionth’ (http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/micro?s=t, accessed 25 November 2013).
2 Palestine was granted ‘non-member Observer status’ at the United Nations in
November 2012 through a vote of the General Assembly (United Nations 2012b).
3 The microstates are, in alphabetical order, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas,
Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Brunei, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Dji-
bouti, Dominica, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, Iceland, Kirib-
ati, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Qatar, St Kitts and St Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Samoa,
San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Surinam, Swaziland,
Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Vatican City State. The Cook Islands are represented in
the UN by New Zealand and the Vatican City has ‘observer status’ at the UN.
The security of the European micro-states 181
4 In February 2013, Pope Benedict XVI announced his intention to resign: an action
unprecedented in modern history since Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415.
5 This has been contested on occasions due to the outlook and attitude of the Vatican on
issues such as contraception, women’s rights, religious freedom, and various health
issues such as HIV/AIDS.
6 See (Quester 1983) for more on this.
7 On post-modern economic options for small spaces, see Chapter 14 in this volume.
8 Andorra was neutral during both World Wars and throughout the Spanish civil war of
the 1930s.
9 In 1999, NATO launched the MAP scheme to assist countries wishing to join the Alli-
ance in their preparations by providing advice, assistance and practical support on all
membership requirements.
10 In 1914, Luxembourg was occupied by the Germans in violation of its neutral
position.
11 Throughout both World Wars, Liechtenstein adopted a neutral position. However, it was
bombed by Allied forces during World War II, partly because of its geographic position
next to Austria and partly because the Allies did not fully accept its neutrality. After the
war, around 500 Soviet troops defected to Liechtenstein from Austria and were granted
asylum. Many, around 300, returned to the Soviet Union later.
12 The Vatican’s use of the euro makes this the first time since the dissolution of the
Holy Roman Empire in 1806 (Bobbit 2002: 559) that coins with an image of the Pope
have been in circulation in continental Europe.
13 In 2000, French parliamentarians published reports into various tax havens in
Europe, including Monaco, alleging that the authorities in Monaco were complicit
in aiding criminals, terrorists and tax evaders. While France collects VAT for the
Principality, amounting to around £170 million per annum, the MPs claimed that
Monegasque banking secrecy helped to hide ‘hot money’ (Assemblée Nationale
2000).
14 This includes other global tax havens outside Europe.
Bibliography
Alesina, A. and Spolaore, E. (2005) The Size of Nations, Cambridge Massachusetts and
London: MIT Press.
Anckar, D. (1998) ‘Bicameral Microstates: A Commonwealth Category’, The Round
Table, 347: 367–378.
Anckar, D. (2002) ‘Why are Small Island States Democracies?’, The Round Table, 365:
375–390.
Anckar, D. (2003) ‘Direct Democracy in Microstates and Small Island States’, World
Development, 32(2): 379–390.
Anckar, D. (2004). Politik i lilleputtar: mikrostater i komparativ belysning. Åbo, Finland:
Åbo akademis förlag.
Archer, C. and Nugent, N. (2002) ‘Introduction: Small States and the European Union’,
Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 11(1): 1–10.
Armed Forces of Malta (2012) The Armed Forces of Malta, available online at: www.
afm.gov.mt/home?l=1 (accessed 2 November 2012).
Armstrong, H. and Read, R. (1995) ‘Western European Micro-States and EU Auto-
nomous Regions: The Advantages of Size and Sovereignty’, World Development,
23(7): 1229–1245.
Armstrong, H. and Read, R. (2003) ‘Microstates and Subnational Regions: Mutual Indus-
trial Policy Lessons’, International Regional Science Review, 26(1): 117–141.
182 A.W. Simpson
Armstrong, H., De Kervenoael, R.J., Li, X. and Read, R. (1998) ‘A Comparison of the
Economic Performance of Different Microstates, and Between Microstates and Larger
Countries’, World Development, 26(4): 639–656.
Assemblée Nationale, (2000) ‘La Principauté de Monaco’, Paris: Assemblée Nationale,
(French parliamentary report).
Bailes, A.J.K. and Gylfason, Th. F. (2009) ‘ “Societal Security” and Iceland’, Stjórnmál
og stjórnsýsla, 1/4, available online at: www.irpa.is/article/view/980/pdf_110.
Bartmann, B. (2002) ‘Meeting the Needs of Microstate Security’, The Round Table, 365:
361–374.
BBC (2012) ‘Andorra Country Profile’, available online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
world/europe/country_profiles/992562.stm (accessed 25 July 2012).
Bobbitt, P. (2002) The Shield of Achilles, London: Allen Lane.
Briguglio, L., Cordina, G. and Kisanga, E.J. (eds) (2006) Building the Economic Resil-
ience of Small States, Malta and London: Islands and Small States Institute (Malta) and
Commonwealth Secretariat.
Camilleri, I. (2011) ‘EU Investing €151.5 Million in Maltese Roads’, The Times of Malta,
9 July, available online at: www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110907/local/EU-
investing-151–5-million-in-Maltese-roads.383619 (accessed 14 November 2012).
Christopher, A.J. (2002) ‘Decolonisation without Independence’, GeoJournal, 56: 213–224.
Daily Telegraph (2011) ‘Wealth of Churches vs Wealth of People’, Daily Telegraph,
available online at: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8790126/Wealth-of-churches-
vs-the-wealth-of-people.html (accessed 9 October 2012).
Davies, N. (1997) Europe: A History, London: Pimlico.
Dózsa, D. (2008) ‘EU Relations with European Micro-States. Happily Ever After?’,
European Law Journal, 14(1): 93–104.
Drezner, D.W. (2001) ‘Sovereignty for Sale’, Foreign Policy, 125: 76–77.
Eccardt, T. (2005) Secrets of the Seven Smallest States of Europe, New York: Hippocrene
Books Inc.
European Defence Information (2012) ‘Cyprus’, available online at: www.armedforces.
co.uk/Europeandefence/edcountries/countrycyprus.htm (accessed 20 November 2012).
Harden, S. (ed.) (1985) Small is Dangerous: Micro States in a Macro World, London:
Pinter/David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies.
Hey, J.A.K. (2003) Small States in World Politics, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Ingebritsen, C., Neumann, I., Gstöl, G. and Beyer, J. (eds) (2006) Small States in Inter-
national Relations, Seattle and Reykjavik: University of Washington Press/University
of Iceland Press.
Kohr, L. (2001) The Breakdown of Nations, Totnes and London: Green books/New Euro-
pean Publications.
Maass, M. (2009) ‘The Elusive Definition of the Small State’, International Politics, 46
(1): 65–83.
Misra, A. (2004) ‘Theorising “Small” and “Micro” State Behaviour using the Maldives,
Bhutan and Nepal’, Contemporary South Asia, 13(2): 133–148.
Mohamed, A.N. (2002) ‘The Diplomacy of Micro-states’, discussion paper in Diplomacy,
78, The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations, available online at:
www.clingendael.nl/publications/2002/20020100_cli _paper_dip_issue78.pdf (accessed
30 September 2012).
Montenegro (2012) ‘Visit Montenegro’, www.visit-montenegro.com/ (accessed 10
August 2012).
The security of the European micro-states 183
Montevideo Convention (1933) Available online at: www.cfr.org/sovereignty/
montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897 (accessed 14 November 2012).
Nairn, T. (1997) Faces of Nationalism: Janus Revisited, London: Verso.
Palan, R. (2002) ‘Tax Havens and the Commercialization of State Sovereignty’, Inter-
national Organization, 56(1): 151–176.
Palan, R. and Abbott, J. with Deans, P. (1999) State Strategies in the Global Political
Economy, London and New York: Pinter.
Plischke, E. (1977) Microstates in World Affairs: Policy Problems and Options, Wash-
ington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Quester, G. (1983) ‘Trouble in the Islands: Defending the Micro-States’, International
Security, 8(2): 160–175.
Sepos, A. (2008) The Europeanization of Cyprus: Polity, Policies and Politics, Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Simpson, A.W. (2008) ‘Nations and States’, in Salmon, T. and Imber, M. (eds) Issues in
International Relations, London and New York: Routledge.
Sinmaz, E. (2011) ‘Liechtenstein for Hire at $70,000 a Night’, Guardian, 15 April, avail-
able online at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/15/liechtenstein-hire-rental-scheme
(accessed 7 October 2012).
Strikwerda, C. (1993) ‘The Troubled Origins of European Economic Integration: Inter-
national Iron and Steel and Labor Migration in the Era of World War I’, The American
Historical Review, 98(4): 1106–1129.
Sundhaussen, U. (2003) ‘Peasants and the Process of Building Democracy Politics:
Lessons from San Marino’, Australian Journal of Politics and History, 49(2): 211–221.
Sutton, P. and Payne, A. (1993) ‘Lilliput under Threat: The Security Problems of Small
Island and Enclave Developing States’, Political Studies, 41(4): 579–593.
Thorhallsson, B. (2011) ‘Domestic Buffer versus External Shelter: Viability of Small
States in the New Globalised Economy’, European Political Science, 10: 324–336.
Treanor, J. (2009) ‘Britain and Liechtenstein Strike Deal on Tax Avoidance’, Guardian,
11 August 2009, available online at: www.theguardian.com/business/2009/aug/11/tax-
havens-liechtenstein (accessed 12 August 2012).
United Nations (2004) The Comprehensive Settlement Of The Cyprus Problem, available
online at: http://unannanplan.agrino.org/Annan_Plan_MARCH_30_2004.pdf (accessed
10 October 2012).
United Nations (2012a) ‘Growth in the United Nations membership, 1945-present’, avail-
able online at: www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml (accessed 17 June 2012).
United Nations (2012b) ‘General Assembly grants Palestine non-member observer State
status at UN’, available online at: www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43640&
Cr=palestin&Cr1= (accessed 20 December 2012).
United Nations (2012c) ‘Permanent Observers’, available online at: www.un.org/en/
members/nonmembers.shtml (accessed 3 August 2012).
Warrington, E. (1994) ‘Lilliput Revisited’, The Asian Journal of Public Administration,
16(1): 3–13.
Wivel, A. and Oest, K.J.N. (2010) ‘Security, Profit, or Shadow of the Past? Explaining
the Security Strategies of Microstates’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs,
23(3): 429–453.
This page intentionally left blank
Part III
Comparative insights
This page intentionally left blank
11 Botswana as a small
developmental state
Ian Taylor
the definition of the ‘developmental state’ runs the risk of being tautological
since evidence that the state is developmental is often drawn deductively
from the performance of the economy. This produces a definition of a state
as developmental if the economy is developing, and equates economic
success to state strength while measuring the latter by the presumed out-
comes of its policies.
Following this, in Botswana there has been a definite commitment by the state to
pursue development. This goes back to the first Presidency of Sir Seretse Khama,
who was conscious of developing a relative backwater of the British Empire. A
conscious and disciplined leadership has seen as one of its main duties as the
need to develop professional institutions with competent bureaucrats. Indeed, the
very process of post-independence nation-building took on a character that was
inspired by the fundamental task of development at all levels of society and gov-
ernment. This developmental ethos was accepted and advanced both by the polit-
ical and bureaucratic elites and by the institutions that they built up.
This experience echoes Ha-Joon Chang’s argument that a developmental state
should act as an entrepreneurial agent whilst engaging in institution- and
capacity-building (Chang 1999). Certainly, the robustness and level of capacity
of state institutions in other developmental states have been crucial. In 1981,
Botswana’s then Minister of Finance and Development Planning, Peter Mmusi,
spoke of the need for a:
Unlike in most other African countries, Britain left no army, no strong bur-
eaucracy, and a weakling middle class. This situation created a critical tech-
nical and political vacuum at independence. The Tswana educated elite [of
whom Khama was one] was so small that it ended up collaborating with the
colonial state, the chiefs and European settlers to form the new ruling class
at independence.
(Molutsi 1989a: 104)
This vacuum was a double-edged sword, for whilst it meant a state with emas-
culated capacity at independence, it also gave Khama and his circle the space to
strip chiefs of their political power. Any threat to the new state’s legitimacy
originating from a chief was nipped in the bud. The Chieftainship Act of 1965
meant that power was granted to the President to recognize, or not recognize, a
traditional ruler, making all chiefs subordinate to the central government. In
addition, a House of Chiefs was established, but with no legislative powers
(Somolekae and Lekorwe 1998). At one blow, this dissolved potential opposi-
tion to building up a strong state apparatus, and concerted opposition to the new
government in general; it alsos removed a potential site of alternative power.
Instead, traditional rulers, dependent on the state for official recognition, served
as facilitators for the implementation of policy, particularly in rural areas. In this
sense, their role within Botswana was re-invented and chiefs became agents of
the government at the grass-roots level.
Furthermore, the post-colonial elite has dominated the National Assembly in
such a way that state resources were not diverted to maintain patronage net-
works, but, rather, were available to be deployed for development. A relative
working autonomy has allowed the political and bureaucratic elite to formulate
policies that have benefited national development even whilst benefiting tradi-
tional elites (e.g. policies on cattle production). Acemoglu (Acemoglu et al.
2001: 44) write:
[T]he members of the BDP [Botswana Democratic Party] and the political
elite that emerged after 1966 had important interests in the cattle industry,
the main productive sector of the economy. This meant that it was in the
interests of the elite to build infrastructure and generally develop institutions
. . . which promoted not only national development, but also their own eco-
nomic interests. This development path was considerably aided by the fact
that the constitution and policies adopted by the BDP meant that there were
no vested interests in the status quo that could block good policies.
One of the key explanations for Botswana’s development trajectory has been the
commitment to development and the willingness to articulate a national vision
for development by the elite or ‘a national perspective that will carry the national
Botswana as a small developmental state 191
psyche to a level of providence, with a sense of future, so as to define its ambi-
tion or desired level of progress’ (Robi 1994: 487). The centrepiece of the state’s
development efforts since the inception of the first National Development Plan
(NDP) from 1968 to 1973, has been to raise the standards of living of the popu-
lation of Botswana. In line with this, development plans have been guided by the
planning objectives of sustainable development, rapid economic growth, eco-
nomic independence and social justice (Republic of Botswana 1997a). The
NDPs have the added advantage of granting policy implementers a great degree
of space between themselves and the politicians. Thus a technical document,
drafted by experts and then approved by elected representatives, serves as the
blueprint for government policy. ‘Once the new plan is approved, politicians’
proposals not in the plan are turned aside on the grounds that only emergency
measures can be adopted until the next plan is formulated’ (Molutsi 1989b: 112).
Botswana thus echoes the developmental state of Johnson, where ‘the politicians
reign and the state bureaucrats rule’ (Johnson 1981: 12).
In addition, and in a conscious imitation of another developmental state’s
Vision 2020 (namely Malaysia), a Presidential Task Group produced a document
entitled ‘A Framework for a Long Term Vision for Botswana’. The ‘Vision
2016’ is supposed to be a national manifesto to guide future National Develop-
ment Plans (NDPs) as well as broad government policy, and it is a statement of
long-term goals together with proposals for a set of strategies to meet them
(Republic of Botswana 1996 and 1997b) According to Mkandawire:
Vision 2016 and the various NDPs, are an indication of the developmentalist nature
of Botswanan governance. Through them, ‘by planning within the context of a
market economy, government policy has tended to influence the direction of gov-
ernment expenditure during the planning period while providing an environment in
which private sector activity can thrive’ (Edge 1998: 334). Yet, the state elite’s
commitment to development alone does not explain Botswana’s experience. As
Maundeni puts it, ‘developmental commitment needed to be matched with institu-
tional capacity. Creating a truly developmental state requires that the whole state
machinery must be subjected to the leadership of an economic agency of the state’
(Maundeni 2001: 18). This economic agency was, as mentioned, the Ministry of
Finance and Development Planning, staffed by an able civil service.
As one consequence, economic advice has been sought from technocrats, par-
ticularly when preparing NDPs and budgets. Indeed, the link between finance
and national development is made explicit by the existence in Botswana of a
single Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) located in the
Vice-President’s office. It is pertinent to add that, prior to becoming President
192 I. Taylor
after Seretse Khama’s death, Quett Masire was Minister of Finance and Devel-
opment Planning and had been Vice-President for 14 years. Similarly, prior to
assuming the Presidency in 1998, current President, Festus Mogae, had been
Masire’s Vice-President for five years as well as being Minister of Finance and
Development Planning. Peter Mmusi, who resigned as Vice-President in 1993
under a cloud, had also held the MFDP post. Such a ministry, with its close links
to the executive, has secured a balance between development planning and
budgeting, as well as strengthening the capacity to implement national goals and
demonstrating a commitment to economic development.
This commitment first emerged after a struggle within the Ministry of Finance
in the immediate post-independence period. Essentially, two factions fought over
the new country’s future economic policy. On the one hand, the Permanent Sec-
retary, Alfred Beeby, insisted on the need to ‘balance the books’ and ‘refused to
entertain any ideas about economic development until moneys in hand’ (Morton
and Ramsay 1994: 63). Opposed to this highly conservative stance were a group
of young economists such as Pierre Landell-Mills and Quill Hermans, who
favoured ‘aggressive planning for economic growth, identification of potential
projects, and then finally lobbying internationally for potential sources of aid or
loans to finance the projects. Moreover, they even promoted the idea of borrow-
ing money to finance development’ (ibid). The latter fraction, fortuitously, had
the ear of Quett Masire, then Vice-President. Beeby had Landell-Mills were
thrown out of the civil service for ‘insubordination’, which for a period of six
weeks (November–December 1966), caused a rift between Masire and President
Khama. The matter was finally resolved after a commission of enquiry that even-
tually saw the creation of the Ministry of Development Planning with Hermans
as Permanent Secretary and Landell-Mills as Senior Government Economist.
It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that the foundations for
the Botswana developmental state were laid during the ‘Landell-Mills affair’, in
the sense that, thereafter, the key Ministry of Development Planning was
developmentally-driven, whilst the objectives of the bureaucrats were politically-
driven and supported by both Seretse Khama and Quett Masire. Meredith Woo-
Cumings has argued that nationalism and a national vision lies at the heart of a
developmental state (1999b: 8) and ‘in many respects development has been
Botswana’s ideology’ (Lewis 1993). As Sir Seretse Khama argued:
According to Maundeni (no date: 10), ‘Botswana has maintained a strong and
relatively autonomous and effective bureaucracy by insulating the planning bur-
eaucrats from societal pressure, employing expatriates and by targeting the train-
ing of locals’. ‘In practice the civil service, not the political leadership, has
dominated policymaking’ (Somolekae 1993: 116). The autonomy of this bureau-
cracy was, of course, socially anchored within the wider milieu of webs and net-
works that linked the cattle-ranchers, politicians and bureaucrats together. This
sort of ‘embedded autonomy’ (Evans 1995) characteristic of developmental
states, created a dynamic interaction between the various (cross-cutting) groups
that stimulated policies favourable not only to the elites themselves, but also to
development. Clearly, developmental states must be involved in a network of
ties, which secure them to groups or classes that can become allies in the pursuit
of societal goals. What has occurred in Botswana is a typical developmental
state situation where the bureaucracy and the ruling party mesh. Evidence to
confirm this is ‘the commonness of the recruitment of senior civil servants
directly not just into the ruling party politics but into senior government posts’
(Charlton 1991: 283). The classic example was previous President, Festus
Mogae, who was variously been Planning Officer, Director of Economic Affairs,
Alternate Governor for Botswana at the IMF, Governor of the Bank of Bot-
swana, Permanent Secretary to the President, Secretary to the Cabinet, Minister
of Finance and Development Planning and finally Vice-President in 1992 before
taking over the presidential reins in 1998.
Some claims have been made that the state has overly favoured an elite frac-
tion of cattle farmers (e.g. Picard 1980 and Parson 1981). This presupposes,
however, a high degree of influence over policy by some interest groups. In
reality, as Holm has pointed out when talking specifically of rural development
and the supposed influence of some ‘bovine elite’, ‘the critical debate on a policy
takes place within the government, not in parliament or in public discussion . . . it
is dominant ministries which shape policy outcomes’ (Holm 1985: 175). Molutsi
(1989b: 126) has gone further to assert that:
Without denying that important government policies benefit the rich and influ-
ential sections of society . . . the state is not sui generis an instrument of local
shopkeepers and cattle owners. Instead it is capable because of its relative auto-
nomy from the major classes in society of concurrently advancing accumula-
tion programmes in favour of the propertied classes on the one hand and
welfare programmes for the poor masses on the other. The latter especially is
important if the state is to establish itself as legitimate for the entire population.
Botswana as a small developmental state 195
It can be argued that the embedded autonomy of the bureaucracy and diverse
ministries have thus served Botswana well, cushioning policy from special-
interest lobbying, though perhaps at a cost of the democratic accountability of
the bureaucracy. The limitations placed on organized labour, in particular, in the
name of nation-building, have been highlighted by some observers (Mogalakwe
1997). Having said that, as in other developmental states, social engineering is
integral to the project. This has been facilitated in Botswana – meaning that there
has been minimal opposition to the dominant elites’ programmes – by civil
society being poorly developed and disorganized, and democratic input being
weak in any case (Molutsi and Holm 1990). In particular, the fragmented opposi-
tion has meant that the BDP has enjoyed hegemonic – if not wholly unchal-
lenged – status since independence.
Freed from such diverse pressures emanating from below, the bureaucracy
has served a crucial role and it is true that ‘the government [has] invested heavily
in infrastructure, health and education and attempted to foster industrial develop-
ment. The key to all this was the creation of a meritocratic bureaucracy and
extensive state capacity’ (Acemoglu et al. 2001: 29). Consequently, ‘public
sector development administration is at once broader and more focussed than
traditional public administration because the state itself serves both as the engine
of growth within the economy and as the primary source of social development
nationally’ (Edge 1998: 336–337).
Following on from this, parastatals have been created in a country that lacks
sufficient local capital – the most notable examples being Botswana Power Cor-
poration, the National Development Bank, Botswana Railways and the Botswana
Development Corporation. In order to finance these, the government has created
a mechanism whereby funds are transferred out of the Consolidated Fund into
three special funds, namely the Domestic Development Fund, which is the
state’s own contribution to capital projects as opposed to donor aid; the Revenue
Stabilization Fund, which absorbs short-term revenue increases and is used to
provide short-term funding to parastatals and local government; and the Public
Debt Service Fund, which provides long-term funding to parastatals. This mech-
anism controls excess spending by central government. Hudson (1991: 57) has
written that ‘the government has had mixed success with these loans, from a
credit worthiness point of view. From a development point of view however,
they have been a great success’.
The state has been keen to diversify the economy away from its traditional
export base and towards manufacturing, particularly as minerals are a finite
resource and ‘the economy’s prospects of continuing rapid growth must lie
mainly with the further development of manufactured exports’ (Harvey 1991:
337). Indeed, the government has noted with alarm the vulnerability of Botswana
to an over-reliance on diamonds in face of the issue of ‘conflict diamonds’
(Daily News (Gaborone) July 6, 2001). To this end, Gaborone has followed a
conscious policy of promoting the industrial sector as a means of diversifying
Botswana’s economy. The Financial Assistance Programme (FAP) has been a
part of this policy. Established in 1982 and revised in 1989 and 1995, FAP was
196 I. Taylor
created to assist businesses that produce or process goods for import substitution
or for export. Large-scale mining and the cattle industry are excluded from FAP
support. Eligible activities for assistance include manufacturing, small- and
medium-scale mining, agriculture other than cattle, selected ‘linking’ service
industries and tourism. Linking service industries are defined as those that
provide a marketing or collection function for the productive activities, includ-
ing associated repair and maintenance facilities. Brewing or distilling operations
do not qualify for assistance.
New projects and expanding productive businesses can apply for assistance,
but only those which raise the national income and have a reasonable chance of
becoming financially viable will receive support. Businesses qualifying for
assistance are classified into three categories:
Small- and medium-scale industrial projects that qualify are administered by the
Department of Industrial Affairs in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The
Ministry of Finance and Development Planning administers the large-scale pro-
jects. However, such mechanisms have largely failed to diversify the economy:
despite the best efforts of the state, Botswana has been unable to emulate such
Asian developmental states as South Korea or Taiwan in building up a large-
scale, competitive manufacturing base. This has been a failing of the country’s
development experience.
Concluding remarks
Botswana is not some sort of utopia in the Kalahari. The country faces serious
problems related to equity within society. It can hardly be said that everyone
has benefited meaningfully from raised incomes or higher standards of living,
despite the extensive provision of health and education facilities as well as
access to potable water and a decent transport infrastructure. As Picard has
pointed out, ‘the primary beneficiaries of government policy in the areas of
economic and rural development have been the organizational elites, bureau-
cratic, professional and political, who dominate the system’ (Picard
1987: 264).
Although Botswana is a ‘cattle country’, this obscures the fact that almost
half of all Botswanans own no cattle at all, with less than 10 per cent of the
population owning about 50 per cent of the country’s cattle. These cattle barons
Botswana as a small developmental state 197
have benefited from government policy on beef, although the receipts from meat
exports also go into state coffers. Samatar and Oldfield (1995: 661) consider that
the Botswana Meat Commission, which manages the country’s beef industry,
‘has nurtured the collective interest of the dominant strata while providing serv-
ices for the many small producers’. Four out of five rural households survive on
the income of a family member in town or abroad. ‘That still leaves a significant
number of rural households, usually female-headed, with no source of income
known to statisticians’ (Parsons 2000).
The creation of a more equitable society and the fairer distribution of
resources is now Botswana’s greatest developmental challenge, which will
define the success or otherwise of the post-independence project. A less elitist,
and more egalitarian, dimension to Botswana as a developmental state is
urgently required. Although some of the inequality in the country is due to spe-
cific policy choices, it is also true – as Tsie (1998: 15) points out – that:
All this has been facilitated by an efficient and well-trained bureaucracy, which
has resisted the descent into corruption that has been the hallmark of much of the
civil service in other parts of the continent. Indeed, skills development, not only
in the bureaucracy but also in the wider private sphere, has been an important
198 I. Taylor
aspect of Botswana’s success – the National Productivity Centre, which came
about after fact-finding missions to Malaysia and Singapore, being a prime
example.
Despite the criticism of inequality within the country, it is still true that ‘state
intervention can play a vital role in creating the conditions for sustained trade
growth and in ensuring that trade expansion translates into poverty reduction –
as the examples of both Botswana and Mauritius in Africa have demonstrated’
(Carroll and Carroll 1997). The Botswanan developmental state has achieved
respectable accomplishments; it may even be argued that Botswana’s strategy
has shown that ‘a disciplined activist African state that governs the market is
essential for industrial development and recovery’ (Owusu and Samatar 1997:
270). In this sense, the lessons that states may pick up from the Asian experi-
ence, namely the construction of ‘local counterparts to the proximate institu-
tional prerequisites of East Asian success – bureaucracies with a capable
economic core and government-business relations based on scepticism combined
with communication and support in return for performance delivered’, might
also be applied to Botswana’s case (Evans 1998: 83). The assessment seems
correct that:
in the best of all possible worlds, African and Latin American countries
would follow the lessons generated by the East Asian experiences in the
same way that East Asian policy-makers followed western models of capit-
alism: with such originality and inventiveness as to outperform the original.
Hopefully the art of leapfrogging is not yet dead.
(Evans 1998: 83)
Botswana as a small developmental state 199
Note
1 It should be pointed out that the examples that Good cites, and which are held up as
somehow indicative of the levels of corruption in Botswana, are drawn from a lengthy
period of time, while similar crimes, unfortunately, are uncovered on a weekly basis in
South Africa and elsewhere.
Bibliography
Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. (2001) ‘How Botswana Did It: Comparative
Development in Sub-Saharan Africa’, unpublished paper.
Botswana Development Corporation (1985) Botswana Development Corporation: The
First Fifteen Years, Gaborone: BDC.
Botswana Development Corporation (1995) Twenty-Fifth Anniversary, Gaborone: BDC.
Botswana Development Corporation (2000) ‘Annual Report 2001: Maintaining the
Momentum’, Gaborone: BDC.
Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis (1996) Study of Poverty and Poverty
Alleviation in Botswana, Gaborone: BIDPA/Ministry of Finance and Development
Planning.
Botswana: Review of Commerce and Industry (2000) Gaborone: B and T Industries.
Carroll, B.W. and Carroll, T. (1997) ‘State and Ethnicity in Botswana and Mauritius: A
Democratic Route to Development?’, Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4): 464–486.
Chang, H.-J. (1999) ‘The Economic Theory of the Developmental State’, in Woo-
Cumings, M. (ed.) The Developmental State, New York: Cornell University.
Charlton, R. (1991) ‘Bureaucrats and Politicians in Botswana’s Policy-making Process:
A Reinterpretation’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 29(3):
265–282.
Clapham, C. (1996) ‘The Developmental State: Governance, Comparison and Culture in
the “Third World” ’, in Imbeau, L. and McKinlay, R. (eds) Comparing Government
Activity, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Colclough, C. and McCarthy, S. (1980) The Political Economy of Botswana: A Study of
Growth and Distribution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Toit, P. (1995) State Building and Democracy in Southern Africa: A Comparative
Study of Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe, Pretoria: HSRC.
Edge, W. and Lekorwe, M. (eds) (1998) Botswana: Politics and Society, Pretoria: Van
Schaik.
Evans, P. (1995) Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Evans, P. (1998) ‘Transferable Lessons? Re-examining the Institutional Prerequisites of
East Asian Policies’, Journal of Development Studies, 34(6): 66–86.
Good, K. (1994) ‘Corruption and Mismanagement in Botswana: A Best-Case Example’,
Journal of Modern African Studies, 32(3): 499–521.
Gulbrandsen, O. (1996) Poverty in the Midst of Plenty, Bergen: Norse Publications.
Harvey, C. (1991) ‘Botswana: Is the Economic Miracle Over?’, Journal of African Eco-
nomics, 1(3): 335–368.
Harvey, C. and Lewis, S. (1990) Policy Choice and Development Performance in Bot-
swana, New York: St Martin’s Press.
Hudson, D. (1991) ‘Booms and Busts in Botswana’, Botswana Notes and Records, 23:
47–67.
200 I. Taylor
Hill, C. and Mokgethi, D.N. (1989) ‘Botswana: Macroeconomic Management of Com-
modity Booms, 1975–86’, in World Bank Successful Development in Africa, Washing-
ton, DC: World Bank.
Holm, J. (1985) ‘The State, Social Class and Rural Development in Botswana’, in Picard,
L. (ed.) The Evolution of Modern Botswana, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Holm, J. and Molutsi, P. (eds) (1989) Democracy in Botswana, Gaborone: Macmillan.
Hope, K.R. (1996) ‘Growth, Unemployment and Poverty in Botswana’, Journal of Con-
temporary Studies, 14(1): 53–67.
International Monetary Fund (2000) World Economic Outlook 2000, New York: IMF.
Jefferis, K. (1998) ‘Botswana and Diamond-Dependent Development’, in Edge, W. and
Lekorwe, M. (eds) Botswana: Politics and Society, Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Jefferis, K. and Kelly, T.F. (1999) ‘Botswana: Poverty Amid Plenty’, Oxford Develop-
ment Studies, 27(2): 211–231.
Johnson, C. (1981) ‘Introduction: The Taiwan Model’, in Hsiung, J.S (ed.) Contemporary
Republic of China: The Taiwan Experience, 1950–1980, New York: Praeger.
Kaplinksy, R. (1991) ‘Industrialisation in Botswana: How Getting the Prices Right
Helped the Wrong People’, in Colclough, C. and Manor, J. (eds) States or Markets?
Neo-liberalism and the Development Policy Debate, Oxford: Clarendon.
Khama, S. (1980) ‘Addressing the Nation on the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of
Independence—30 September 1976’, in Carter, G. and Morgan, P. (eds) From the
Frontline: Speeches of Sir Seretse Khama, London: Rex Collings.
Leith, C. (2000) ‘Why Botswana Prospered’, unpublished paper.
Leftwich, A. (2000). States of Development: On the Primacy of Politics in Development,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lewis, S. (1993) ‘Policymaking and Economic Performance: Botswana in Comparative
Perspective’, in Stedman, S.J. (ed.) Botswana: The Political Economy of Democratic
Development, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Maundeni, Z. (no date) ‘The Public Policy Process in Africa: The Case of Botswana’,
paper prepared for ‘Botswana Leadership Development Programme’, coordinated by
the Department of Adult Education of the University of Botswana and Corde.
Maundeni, Z. (2001) ‘State Culture and the Botswana Developmental State’, paper pre-
sented to the Department of Political and Administrative Studies, University of Bot-
swana, January 25.
Mkandawire, T. (1998) ‘Thinking About Developmental States in Africa’, paper pre-
sented at the UNU-AERC workshop on ‘Institutions and Development in Africa’, UNU
Headquarters, Tokyo: Japan, October 14–15.
Mogalakwe, M. (1997) The State and Organised Labour in Botswana: ‘Liberal Demo-
cracy’ in Emergent Capitaism, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Molutsi, P. (1989a) ‘The Ruling Class and Democracy in Botswana’, in Holm, J. and P.
Molutsi (eds) Democracy in Botswana, Gaborone: Macmillan.
Molutsi, P. (1989b) ‘Whose Interests Do Botswana’s Politicians Represent?’, in Holm, J.
and Molutsi, P. (eds) Democracy in Botswana, Gaborone: Macmillan.
Molutsi, P. and Holm, J. (1990) ‘Developing Democracy When Civil Society is Weak:
The Case of Botswana’, African Affairs, 89(356): 323–341.
Morton, B. and Ramsay, J. (1994) The Making of a President: Sir Ketumile Masire’s
Early Years, Gaborone: Pula Press.
Owusu, F. and Samatar, A. (1997) ‘Industrial Strategy and the African State: The Bot-
swana Experience’, Canadian Journal of African Studies, 31(2): 268–299.
Parson, J. (1981) ‘Cattle, Class and the State in Rural Botswana’, Journal of Southern
African Studies, 7(2): 236–265.
Botswana as a small developmental state 201
Parsons, N. (2000) Botswana History Pages, ‘Economy’, October, available online at:
http://ubh.tripod.com/bw/bhp13.htm# (accessed 25 November 2013).
Picard, L. (1980) ‘Bureaucrats, Cattle and Public Policy: Land Tenure Change in Bot-
swana’, Comparative Political Studies, 13(3): 313–356.
Picard, L. (1987) The Politics of Development in Botswana: A Model for Success?,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Republic of Botswana (1996) Presidential Task Group – A Framework for a Long Term
Vision for Botswana, Gaborone: Government Printers.
Republic of Botswana (1997a) National Development Plan 8 1997/8–2002/03, Gaborone:
Government Printers.
Republic of Botswana (1997b) Presidential Task Group – Vision 2016: Towards Pros-
perity For All, Gaborone: Government Printers.
Robi, M. (1994) ‘Economic Policy for the 21st Century’, in Brothers, S., Hermans, J. and
Nteta (eds) Botswana In the 21st Century, Gaborone: BotswanaSociety.
Samatar, A. (1999) An African Miracle: State and Class Leadership and Colonial Legacy
in Botswana’s Development, Portsmouth: Heinemann Press.
Samatar, A. and Oldfield. S. (1995) ‘Class and Effective State Institutions: The Botswana
Meat Commission’, Journal of Modern African Studies, 33(4): 651–668.
Somolekae, G. (1993) ‘Botswana and Democracy in Botswana: What Type of a Relation-
ship?’, in Stedman, S.J. (ed.) Botswana: The Political Economy of Democratic Devel-
opment, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Somolekae, G. and Lekorwe, M. (1998) ‘The Chieftaincy System and Politics in Bot-
swana, 1966–95’, in Edge, W. and Lekorwe, M. (eds) Botswana: Politics and Society,
Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Stedman, S.J. (ed.) (1993) Botswana: The Political Economy of Democratic Develop-
ment, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Stein, H. (2000) ‘The Development of the Developmental State in Africa: A Theoretical
Inquiry’, occasional paper, Copenhagen: Centre of African studies, University of
Copenhagen, December.
Theobald, R. and Williams, R. (1999) ‘Combating Corruption in Botswana: Regional
Role Model or Deviant Case?’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics,
37(3): 117–134.
Tsie, B. (1998) ‘The State and Development Policy in Botswana’, in Hope, K.R. and
Somolekae, G. (eds) Public Administration and Policy in Botswana, Kenwyn: Juta.
Woo-Cumings, M. (ed.) (1999a) The Developmental State, New York: Cornell Univer-
sity.
Woo-Cumings, M. (1999b) ‘Introduction: Chalmers Johnson and the Politics of National-
ism and Development’, in Woo-Cumings M. (ed.) The Developmental State, New
York: Cornell University.
World Bank (1999) Botswana: A Case Study of Economic Policy Prudence and Growth,
Washington, DC: World Bank.
12 Small state security in Asia
Political and temporal constructions of
vulnerability
Alan Chong
. . . it was a theatre state in which the kings and princes were the impresarios,
the priests the directors, and the peasants the supporting cast, stage crew,
and audience. The stupendous cremations, tooth filings, temple dedications,
pilgrimages, and blood sacrifices, mobilizing hundreds and even thousands
of people and great quantities of wealth, were not means to political ends:
they were the ends themselves, they were what the state was for.
(Geertz 1980: 13)
Geertz goes on to assert that to be seen as an effectual political entity, the theatre
state had to represent itself as an ‘exemplary centre’ – not unlike the cosmology
of the mandalic system. It had to manifest in the eyes of its subjects the majesty
of heavenly order on earth. In this dispensation, the question of smallness did
not even arise. The criterion for effective proto-sovereignty across borders was
the degree of awe that the royal court could muster.
Much of the pan-regional Confucian culture typifying what is today called the
Northeast Asian sub-region, namely the two Koreas, Mongolia, Japan and China,
can be described as broadly similar to both the negara and mandala of South
and Southeast Asia. Confucian culture incorporated references to a mandate
from Heaven in court ceremonies, rituals and the imperial roles of the incumbent
monarch and his officials. Moreover, the Court had to behave in an exemplary
manner in rendering justice and instrumental delivery for the needs of the
common people (Gernet 1982: Chapters 3–4). The tributary system that con-
nected the Chinese Court and the vassal kingdoms of Korea and Mongolia is
well known as an expression of the majesty of the Emperor (or Empress) exer-
cising the mandate from above. Despite the rebellious political postures of the
vast majority of Japanese kingdoms, or Shogunates, the latter also imitated the
essence of Confucian politics in their governance of domestic and foreign
relations.
Looking at these patterns, it is clear why any inquiry into Asian small state
security must ask the constructivist question: How do modern twentieth-century
post-colonial leaders conceptualize what managing a modern small state means?
To find the answer, however, the colonial impact on Asian states must be briefly
surveyed as another complicating layer in the socialization of security percep-
tions. The advent of the European colonization of Asia, from roughly the late
1400s through till the mid-1960s, left an indelible impact in terms of population
groups’ identities, their mobilities, their positioning within an economic hier-
archy and finally their borders (Hunter 1966: Chapters 4–5; Mason 2005:
Chapter 11). European colonialism inscribed new practices upon the traditional
ways of Asian states and societies. Colonialism is by definition extractive and
204 A. Chong
intrusive in both economic and demographic senses. The Portuguese, Spaniards,
Dutch, British, French and Americans were in Asia to seek out raw materials for
fuelling the industrial revolution in Europe and North America. They imposed
imperialist systems of social and political organization upon the natives to sys-
tematize economic extraction, and also to re-settle their own surplus and unem-
ployed populations from the metropole. Cultural groupings that had oriented
themselves under the mandalic, negara and pan-regional Asian belief systems
suffered a rude shock when they had to adhere to notions of sovereignty and
fixed boundaries, as well as coping with Western demands for extra-territorial
rights and privileges. Some of the traditional Asian elites ruled with the support
and calculated tolerance of the new colonial masters, while others were summar-
ily removed from power altogether in the name of restoring peace and subservi-
ence to colonial economics. In territories such as Cambodia, Borneo, Burma, the
Dutch East Indies, Malaya, Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam, the colonial
masters encouraged immigration by sizable numbers of Chinese and ‘Indians’
(chiefly Tamils and Malayalees from South Asia) in order to expedite economic
development, since these races were seen as more inclined towards diligence,
sacrifice and rentier functions under forceful leadership than the indigenous eth-
nicities of Southeast Asia (Hunter 1966: 60–72). Where their leaderships were
pliable, the indigenous ethnicities were set against the imported races by being
employed in less sensitive colonial government posts to police public order and
traffic flows. In these ways, the colonial impact redrew and fixed the modern
borders of Asia, while heightening inter-racial discord under the cold logic of
economic exploitation.
The modern Asian small state’s perspective comes into being when the
‘agency’ of the post-colonial sovereign state attempts to reconcile its fixed terri-
torial nature with the ‘structure’ of nationalisms that straddle borders, the global
economic system and issues of international order as determined by the actions
of Great Powers. As the Malayan Representative to the United Nations com-
mented, barely four months after Malaya gained independence from the United
Kingdom, under Cold War conditions ‘communist terrorism in Malaya had
aroused interest in America about Malaya and had resulted in publicity without
our own effort’ (Ismail 2009: 6).
Malaya was approximately one-third the territorial size of the neighbouring
newly-independent archipelagic state of Indonesia, whose foreign policy was
oriented towards Maoist China and the USSR, and Malaya’s population was
approximately 8 per cent of Indonesia’s at that time. The Malayan government
found common cause with the departing British colonial power in suppressing a
Communist insurgency, while the nationalist politicians in Jakarta entertained
the notion of solidarity among all anti-colonial forces, including left-wing parties
and trade unions. Furthermore, Maoist China retained a special channel of socio-
cultural influence amongst the ethnic Chinese citizens of Malaya, who consti-
tuted approximately one-third of the total population.
The Cold War had indeed foisted upon much of Asia a new combination of
demographic and geographical disparities with ideological insecurity. In the
Small state security in Asia 205
checkerboard interpretations of Moscow, Beijing and Washington, small states
were either ‘beachheads’ for wider regional domination and revolution, or ‘weak
but strategically important allies’, to be propped up. One can go on to trace the
mirrored logics between the Americans ‘rescuing’ South Korea between 1950
and 1953 and the Chinese and Soviets ‘arming the fraternal’ Socialist Republic
of Vietnam between 1950 and 1975, extending these subsequently to any number
of proxies throughout Asia. The ‘domino theory’ espoused by the Eisenhower
Administration in the mid-1950s crystallized a highly rigid Cold War narrative
of vulnerability for the non-Communist small states of South Vietnam, Laos,
Cambodia, Burma, Malaya and Singapore. Taiwan, too, could fit into such a
logic if the case were made in relation to the shipping lifelines transiting Tai-
wanese waters en route to South Korea and Japan. In South Asia, Pakistan and
even supposedly non-aligned India and Sri Lanka were seen as bulwarks against
Soviet and Chinese encroachments westward and southward.
This coincidence of Cold War political constructions of vulnerability with the
formal independence of these Asian small states resonates with the editors’ pro-
posal in Chapter 1 of this volume, to adhere to a qualitative and relational defini-
tion of the small state, and with their view that such definitions must start with
the small state’s power weaknesses. The small state is theoretically powerless to
protect itself from determined attacks from abroad; it is powerless to assert its
autonomy under most circumstances, and is therefore capable of only a highly
circumscribed range of reactions; it is powerless to affect the ‘games’ being
played on the international stage; and it is ultimately powerless in its position as
a miniscule player on that stage.1 This fits perfectly with the present chapter’s
preference for a constructivist approach to the study of Asian small states.2 Asian
small states define their weaknesses in security in relation to an imported polit-
ical form, namely the nation-state, and to their leaders’ perceptions – in this per-
spective – of dangers lurking in the wider international order either for their
recently demarcated borders or the constitution of their domestic societies.
Nonetheless, a caveat should be made here that powerlessness is not a finite and
irredeemable condition. The creative employment of soft power by some Asian
small states defies ‘conventional’ readings of their powerlessness. (Chong and
Maass 2010)
The remainder of this chapter seeks to articulate a set of general features of
Asian small state security by examining the security experiences of two small
states: Sri Lanka and Singapore. Placed respectively in South and Southeast
Asia, each of these has experienced significant internal dissension affecting its
foreign relations and external security. Such a pattern is both historical in the
Asian region, and consistent with the findings of many Commonwealth
Secretariat-inspired reports on the international plight of small states (Charles et
al. 1997). Each state has also confronted the question of power projection by its
larger neighbours, some of whose behaviour verged on the predatory and directly
threatened the small states’ autonomy. Against the larger evolving backdrop of
an Asia transiting from colonialism to post-colonial independent statehood, both
states today exemplify the new Asia coming to terms with a regional
206 A. Chong
international society (Chong 2011) that expects relatively constant adherence to
new norms of sociality and management of conflicts without resort to overt
military action. These are, in turn, the minimum prerequisites for a society hos-
pitable to Asian small states.
Each case study is organized in three thematic sections: internal sources of
insecurity and coping strategies, namely state and nation-building issues; exter-
nal sources of insecurity and coping strategies; and the present and future chal-
lenges to intermestic security. The shorthand term ‘intermestic’ (i.e. a
combination of international and domestic) reflects the fact – also highlighted in
this chapter’s conclusions – that the management of small states’ problems
requires constant calibration between domestic and external pressures. The polit-
ical spaces attached to their respective sovereignties admit very little margin for
error if statehood and nationhood are not to be called into question.
My proposal was that the Indian Ocean should be made a Zone of Peace. It
should be free of the presence of Big Powers in a state of rivalry and com-
petition; that military installations established by these Powers should be
dismantled and removed; and that it should be secured for lawful commer-
cial and other peaceful uses and pursuits.
(quoted in Kodikara 1980: 880)
In fact, the Peace Zone concept has never progressed beyond examination by an
ad hoc committee at the UN. Its value in its Cold War context was probably
more rhetorical and moral in nature. In concrete terms, it legitimized Colombo’s
intermestic attempts to tie India’s hands in the eyes of regional and global public
opinion, while also politically justifying Colombo’s welcome for the Americans’
countervailing presence on the British-owned Indian Ocean island of Diego
Garcia (Manor and Segal 1985). As President Jayawardene said in the late
1970s, ‘I don’t know if we want the Americans to get out of the Indian Ocean. If
there is a change in India and there is some threat to Ceylon [i.e. Sri Lanka] we
might need Diego Garcia’ (quoted in Manor and Segal 1985: 1179). More
recently, with the rise of Chinese power across East Asia, Sri Lanka has wel-
comed Chinese economic investments and arms sales as a pointed counterbal-
ance to India. Sri Lanka has declared its appreciation for Chinese military
supplies in its fight against the LTTE insurgents (DeSilva-Ranasinghe 2011). In
contrast, the Western states have threatened Colombo with sanctions over the
brutalities committed by its military forces in its war against the LTTE.
Courting rival Great Powers has remained an essential tool of Colombo’s
foreign policy in the face of geopolitical threats created by a larger neighbour and
by other Great Powers themselves. This still holds good some four decades later,
even though Sri Lanka continues to be a member of the South Asian Association
for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). More spectacularly, in 2009, China approved
Sri Lanka’s application for dialogue partner status in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, a grouping of Central Asian states that includes China and Russia
but includes India only as an observer (DeSilva-Ranasinghe 2011: 62).
210 A. Chong
Present and future challenges to intermestic security
Since independence, Sri Lankan security policies have been dominated by the
internal ethnic strife roiling its politics. Despite foreign allegations of brutality
and human rights violations during the LTTE’s final defeat in 2009, the logic of
exclusionist nationalism at home remains politically appealing for the current
President, Mahinda Rajapaksa, and his party, the United People’s Freedom Alli-
ance. He is perceived by most Sinhalese as the ‘hero’ who ended the LTTE’s
reign of terror, and his government can tout their success in resettling 250,000
refugees and rebuilding essential infrastructure in the war zone, seeding a steady
economic recovery (Goodhand 2012: 132–133). No amount of foreign pressure
is likely to dislodge the current Sinhalese-dominated regime from power, and the
leadership seem to find an international pariah status for the Sri Lankan state tol-
erable so long as economic growth and general inter-state peace in South Asia
are not seriously disturbed. Indeed, Rajapaksa has urged Sri Lankan diplomats to
wage a more aggressive propaganda effort worldwide to counter LTTE sympa-
thizers’ ‘misinformation campaign’ (TamilNet 2013; ZEENEWS.com 2012).
Meanwhile, relations with the great powers continue in a status quo with the
Indian power balanced by Chinese influence, even as relations with the West are
strained over the human rights imbroglio stemming from the war against the LTTE.
In this respect, Colombo exhibits classic small state behaviour vis-à-vis the great
powers, namely hedging its bets and courting rivals. But the bigger source of insec-
urity stems ironically from the blind domestic pursuit of Sinhalese nationalism.
The military victory over the Tamil insurgency may prove illusory over the long
term if Tamils are compelled to seek redress in ever more violent ways through the
familiar intermestic dimension. One avenue of indirect pressure from the Tamil
diaspora has arisen through US pressures for Sri Lankan government account-
ability before the UN Human Rights Council. In 2013, this campaign was actively
abetted by the NGO Human Rights Watch and by an independent journalist whose
docudrama, ‘No Fire Zone: the Killing Fields of Sri Lanka’ was screened before
the UN Human Rights Council (Cumming-Bruce 2013).
Notes
1 See Chapter 1 in this volume.
2 A good survey of the ‘constructivist approach’ to state security analysis can be found
in (Zehfuss 2002: 10–23).
Bibliography
Ayoob, M. (1985) ‘The Primacy of the Political: South Asian Regional Cooperation
(SARC) in Comparative Perspective’, Asian Survey, 25(4): 443–457.
Charles, Dame E. (1997) A Future for Small States: Overcoming Vulnerability. Report by
a Commonwealth Advisory Group, London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Chew, E.C.T. (1991) ‘The Singapore National Identity: Its Historical Evolution and
Emergence’, in Chew, E.C.T. and Lee, E. (eds) A History of Singapore, Singapore:
Oxford University Press, pp. 357–368.
Chong, A. (2011) ‘A Society of the Weak, the Medium and the Great: Southeast Asia’s
Lessons in Building Soft Community among States’, in Astrov, A. (ed.) The Great
Power (mis)Management: The Russian–Georgian War and its Implications for Global
Political Order, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Chong, A. (2012) ‘Disciplining Globalization for Local Purposes? The Peculiarity of
Contending Singaporean Economic Nationalisms’, in D’Costa, A.P. (ed.) Globaliza-
tion and Economic Nationalism in Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 177–201.
Chong, A. (2013) ‘Singapore and the Soft Power Experience’, in Cooper, A.F. and Shaw,
.T.M. (eds) The Diplomacies of Small States: Between Vulnerability and Resilience,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 65–80.
Chong, A. and Maass, M. (2010) ‘Introduction: The Foreign Policy Power of Small
States’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(3): 381–382.
Christie, C.J. (1998) Southeast Asia in the Twentieth Century: A Reader, London: I. B.
Tauris Publishers.
Cumming-Bruce, N. (2013) ‘Sri Lanka Urged to Complete Review of Alleged Atrocities’,
International Herald Tribune, 20 March, p. 3.
Dent, C.M. (2002) ‘Reconciling Multiple Economic Multilateralisms: The Case of Singa-
pore’, Contemporary Southeast Asia, 24(1): 146–165.
Small state security in Asia 221
DeSilva-Ranasinghe, S. (2011) ‘Another Bead in the “String of Pearls”? Interpreting Sri
Lanka’s Foreign Policy Realignment’, China Security, 19: 57–67.
Fox, A.B. (1959) The Power of Small States: Diplomacy in World War II, Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Geertz, C. (1980) Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali, Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gernet, J. (1982) A History of Chinese Civilization (2nd edition), New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Goodhand, J. (2012) ‘Sri Lanka in 2011: Consolidation and Militarization of the Post-
War Regime’, Asian Survey, 52(1): 130–137.
Hey, J.A.K. (ed.) (2003) Small States in World Politics: Explaining Foreign Policy Beha-
viour, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hunter, G. (1966) Southeast Asia – Race, Culture and Nation, London: Oxford Univer-
sity Press for Institute of Race Relations.
Huxley, T. (2000) Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore, St Leon-
ard’s: Allen and Unwin.
Iftekharuzzaman (1998) ‘Bangladesh: A Weak State and Power’ in Alagappa, M. (ed.)
Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences, Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press, pp. 315–337.
Ismail, A.R. (2009) Malaya’s First Year at the United Nations – As Reflected in Dr
Ismail’s Reports Home to Tunku Abdul Rahman, ed. I. Tawfik and K.B. Ooi, Singa-
pore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Jayakumar, S. (2011) Diplomacy – A Singapore Experience, Singapore: Straits Times Press.
Kang, D. (1998) ‘North Korea: Deterrence Through Danger’, in Alagappa, M. (ed.) Asian
Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences, Stanford: Stanford University
Press, pp. 234–263.
Kodikara, K.U. (1980) ‘Continuity and Change in Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy:
1974–1979’, Asian Survey, 20(9): 879–890.
Krishna, S. (2010) ‘Sri Lanka: Challenges in State Consolidation and Minority Integra-
tion’, in Paul, T.V. (ed.) South Asia’s Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insec-
urity Predicament, Stanford, California: Stanford Security Studies, Stanford University
Press, pp. 220–240.
Lee, Kuan Yew (2000) From Third World to First. The Singapore Story: 1965–2000,
Singapore: Times Editions.
Leifer, M. (2000) Singapore’s Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability, London:
Routledge.
Malik, Y.K., Kennedy, C.H., Oberst, R.C., Kapur, A., Lawoti, M. and Rahman, S. (2009)
Government and Politics in South Asia. Vol. Six, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Manor, J. and Segal, G. (1985) ‘Causes of Conflict: Sri Lanka and Indian Ocean
Strategy’, Asian Survey, 25(12): 1165–1185.
Mason, C. (2005) A Short History of Asia (2nd edition), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Morada, N.M., and Collier, C. (1998) ‘The Philippines: State versus Society’ in Ala-
gappa, M. (ed.) Asian Security Practice: Material and Ideational Influences, Stanford:
Stanford University Press, pp. 549–578.
Nye Jr, J.S. (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York, New
York: Public Affairs.
Rajagopalan, S. (2005) ‘South Asia’s Small States in World Politics’, in Hagerty, D.T.
(ed.) South Asia in World Politics, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield,
pp. 89–112.
222 A. Chong
Rajaratnam, S. (1987) ‘Interview No. 3 (14 December 1985)’, in Chan, H.C. and ul Haq,
O. (eds) The Prophetic and the Political: Selected Speeches and Writings of S. Rajarat-
nam, Singapore: Graham Brash and St Martin’s Press, pp. 517–540.
Sahadevan, P (2012) ‘Ethnic Peacemaking in Sri Lanka: The Politics of an Autonomy
Solution’, in Ganguly, R. (ed.) Autonomy and Ethnic Conflcit in South and South-East
Asia, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 46–87.
Swettenham, F. (1948) British Malaya: an Account of the Origins and Progress of British
Influence in Malaya (3rd edition), London: George Allen and Unwin.
TamilNet (2013) ‘Canadian minister fails to address genocide, annihilation of Tamil ter-
ritory’, 3 February, available online at: www.tamilnet.com/cat.html?catid=79&view=s
ummary&year=2013&month=&date= (accessed 5 February, 2013).
Vital, D. (1967) The Inequality of States: A Study of the Small Power in International
Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wilairat, K. (1975) Singapore’s Foreign Policy: The First Decade, Field Report Series
no. 10, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Wolters, O.W. (2004) History, Culture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives (2nd
edition), Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
ZEENEWS.com (2012) ‘Foreign Policy Challenges Remain for Sri Lanka’, 8 July, avail-
able online at: zeenews.india.com/news/south-asia/foreign-policy-challenges-remain-
for-sri-lanka_786148.html (accessed 28 November, 2012).
Zehfuss, M. (2002) Constructivism in International Relations: The Politics of Reality,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13 What Caribbean post-2015?
Developmental and/or fragile? Old
versus new security?
Timothy M. Shaw
Introduction
Severe security challenges are not new to the small states of the Caribbean.1
The Caribbean was the centre of piracy in the seventeenth century; in the
twenty-first, it is at the core of the global, especially Western hemisphere,
drugs trade and related criminal activities – what has been called the drugs/
gangs/guns/masculinities nexus (Bagley 2012; Naim 2006; Naylor 2005) – as
well as serving as a sensitive bellwether for environmental (UNEP 2008) and
economic (Pantin 2005) security. Transnational organized crime (TOC) is
nothing new in the region (Farer 1999; Madsen 2009), but it has become tech-
nologically more sophisticated: from sailboats to cell-phones, cutlasses to
AK47s. In former times, the response was colonialism and the Royal Navy.
Today the reaction is expressed through efforts for human security and devel-
opment (Bowling 2010: 279–309), focusing especially on environmental
security but also ‘citizen security’ (UNDP 2012a, b and c) and ‘private
security’ (Friman and Andreas 1999) – the last refuge for the middle class in
fragile states? This chapter uses both comparative/generic, and, specifically,
Caribbean, cases and insights (Harriott 2003; Townsend 2009; UNDP 2012b)
to illuminate old and new security challenges (Clarkson et al. 2013; Friman
2009; Glenny 2009)
224 T.M. Shaw
What is security in the Caribbean?
There are many definitions of the Caribbean(s): from the more ‘micro’ to the
more ‘macro’, the latter including diasporas in North America and Europe. To
identify and understand the security challenges of the region, this chapter seeks
to go beyond the ‘new regionalism’ of non-state (corporate and civil society)
formulations, towards recognition of the important informal and even illegal
dimensions (Fanta et al. 2013). The Caribbean can be understood as more than a
set of either formal or informal economies/societies/polities, however compat-
ible or otherwise these may be; it can also be addressed in terms of transnational
diasporas and/or as a nexus of drugs/gangs/guns/masculinities (Harriott 2003;
Townsend 2009). Hence the focus here on five sets of overlapping ‘trans-
national’ relationships that pose challenges to national and regional, human and
citizen securities (Bowling 2010): transnational families, civil societies, supply
chains including offshore finance/money-laundering (Palan et al. 2010; Vlcek
2008), crime networks and governance nexuses (Bronfman 2007).
To carry out this conceptual approach, several analytical traditions will need
to be employed; not just the notion of small island states as developed in inter-
national relations, international political economy and international development
studies, but also insights from anthropology, criminology, development, history,
security, sociology, transnational phenomena and especially ‘new regionalisms’
(Shaw et al. 2011). Together these will inform the prospects of several altern-
ative, analytical and applied, future scenarios for the Caribbean in the post-
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) world after 2015 (Singh and Izarali
2013). Will the region’s dominant character be more developmental (Kyung-Sup
et al. 2012), and/or fragile (Brock et al. 2012)? The Caribbean example suggests
that the heuristic, ‘varieties’ perspective could be extended from capitalisms to
versions of security. Islands are unavoidably outward-looking, and include
myriad diasporas, so their trans- and non-national relations are vulnerable to
both old and new security challenges (Bowling 2010: 31–36). This is true
regardless of whether the challenges arise from old or new imperial powers,
from the Europeans and US, or from the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China)
and other emerging economies/powers like MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South
Korea and Turkey) (O’Neill 2011).
In order to understand Caribbean small state security, this chapter juxtaposes
a set of ‘transnational’ relations (Brown 2011; Hale and Held 2011) – families,
civil societies, supply chains, crime networks and governance nexuses – with
notions of new as well as old security These seem to fit or resonate in the case of
today’s Caribbean(s). Both the transnational and the regional spheres include
economic, ecological, social and state relations, both formal and informal.
Together they can advance analyses of both the transnational and the regional
dimension (Laursen 2010), and they suggest a range of possible futures for
Caribbean actors before the end of the second decade of the present century
(Bishop 2013; Bishop and Payne 2010; Payne and Sutton 2007), as indicated in
the concluding paragraphs. But they also include old and new security
Caribbean post-2015: old versus new security 225
dimensions, both national and human. At the start of the present decade, the
Caribbean – reinforced by Central America – advanced a novel notion of ‘citizen
security’ in response to the ubiquitous guns/gangs/drugs/masculinities nexus
(UNODC 2012), as discussed below. As Ben Bowling (2010: 4) indicates:
Given the contemporary variety of regional security issues and responses at the
start of the second decade of the twenty-first century (Griffiths 2004; Harriott
2003; UNDP 2012a), the adoption of a ‘new’ transnational and regionally
defined perspective on today’s Caribbean would seem to be appropriate (Mace et
al. 2011). Orthodox frameworks cannot capture the diversity and dynamism of
contemporary regional security dilemmas, which operate not just at micro-,
meso- or macro-levels, or in inter- and non-state contexts, but also increasingly
include informal and illegal transactions at all levels and in all sectors (Soder-
baum and Shaw 2003). Enquiring into the interconnections among these three or
four distinct yet interrelated ‘regions’ also challenges traditional disciplinary
approaches (Singh and Izarali 2013).
Furthermore, inter-regional relations are also of growing salience, even when
duplicative or competitive rather than compatible or cooperative, as a reflection
of the proliferation of organized regions at all levels. This is especially so of
relationships built around the European Union (EU) with its 27–28 members,
such as the Asia-Europe Meetings (ASEM), Economic Partnership Agreements
(EPAs) (Laursen 2010), Mediterranean policies (Zank 2009), and sectoral
systems of pipeline projects and the like (Aalto 2008), as analysed by the aca-
demic networks NETRIS2 (Fanta et al. 2013) and GR:EEN,3 which share the
United Nations University’s Comparative Regional Integration Studies pro-
gramme4 as their hub. The distinctive, divergent character of different regions
has intensified as the current ‘global’ financial crisis has impacted them differ-
ently. Asia has been less affected than either the EU, the North American Free
Trade Area (NAFTA) or the North Atlantic; hence the focus in the UN Develop-
ment Programme’s (UNDP) 2013 Human Development Report (UNDP 2013)
on ‘The Rise of the South’.
Finally, the Caribbean region – like all other groups of Small Island Develop-
ing States (SIDS) – faces profound transnational environmental as well as eco-
nomic challenges, as regularly outlined at the annual Conferences of the Parties
to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) and other inter-
national debates on the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol. The reporting of rel-
evant hazards by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP 2008) and other
authorities is definitive; hence the advocacy of regional environmental networks
226 T.M. Shaw
like the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)5 and the establishment
of the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCC) in Belize.6 In turn,
this is tending to shift the balance of prominence between the Association of
Caribbean States (ACS)7 and the Caribbean Community CARICOM,8 since the
former – despite being more ‘meso-’ in scale, including the isthmus as well as
the islands – has always been more concerned with the environment than the
latter.
Bahamas 31,900
Barbados 25,800
Trinidad and Tobago 20,400
Antigua and Barbuda 18,300
St Kitts and St Nevis 16,500
Dominica 14,400
Grenada 13,900
St Lucia 13,300
Suriname 12,600
St Vincent and the Grenadines 12,000
Dominican Republic* 9,800
Jamaica 9,300
Belize 8,900
Montserrat 8,500**
Guyana 8,100
Haiti 1,300
Average 14,062.5
Contemporary, like historical, migration has been very uneven throughout the
Caribbean, with recent outflows being most significant from Guyana and Jamaica
to North America and from Suriname to the Netherlands (some 200–250,000
Surinamese now in the Dutch diaspora vs. 450,000 at home). There are estim-
ated to be as many Guyanese in the US, especially in New York City, and
Canada, particularly Scarborough Ontario, as at home: +/–700,000 each. Their
presence, along with technological changes, has led to a dramatic rise in inter-
national communications, such as phone conversations, especially using mobiles
and phone-cards, and airline flights, with remittances growing from US$20
million in 2000 to US$200 million mid-decade. Guyana’s reliance on remit-
tances is highest in the Latin America-Caribbean region; it is even higher than
Haiti’s (IDB 2009: 10) and provides a quarter of GDP. Similarly for Jamaica,
which has some million Jamaicans abroad and less than three million at home,
with remittances totalling US$2 billion in the mid-2000s – some 20 per cent of
GDP (World Bank 2008). Western Union and Moneygram have become
ubiquitous in diasporic communities in the north and capital cities in the south,
even if remittance flows, particularly from the US and southern Eurozone
members like Spain, have been under pressure since the 2008 financial crisis.
Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) grew throughout
almost all of the first decade of the twenty-first century, but peaked in
2006–2008, declining in 2009 back to 2005 levels (ECLAC 2009) as a reflection
of the knock-on effects of the global financial crisis, particularly in the trans-
Atlantic centres of the US and the UK. However, when inflation is factored in,
remittances in local currencies may have actually increased in 2009, and flows
are expected to stabilize at the start of the second decade (IDB 2009: 3). The
overlap between remittances, money-laundering and income from drugs, is prob-
lematic; Mexico may receive as much as US$20–40 billion each year from the
drugs trade with the US.
Transnational Caribbean families can be considered as central to the evolu-
tion of transnational civil society focused on the region (Reis 2004; Scher 2009;
Thomas-Hope 2009).
The digital revolution has transformed both political economy and social culture,
let alone informal and illegal flows, around the Caribbean, notably through a trio
of ‘transformative processes: the introduction of cellular telephones, the adop-
tion of the internet, and the proliferation of offshore gambling sites’ (Bronfman
2007: 12).14
The region has always been defined by its music and sports, as well as cuis-
ines, symbolised by Carnival and other festivals. If its legendary cricket prowess
has been in decline, some of its athletes have excelled at the recent summer
Olympics. Such skills are reinforced by diasporic connections, such as cricket
teams in the UK county competition, or now, India’s Premier League
Diasporas can make demands regarding development, democracy and security
back home, potentially with an impact on the North’s foreign policies. This
aspect of ‘double’ public diplomacy (i.e. both inside and about the Caribbean)
was symbolized by the last months in office of Michaëlle Jean as Governor-
General in Canada, when she was also a celebrity diplomat for her native Haiti
after its 2010 earthquake; in turn, this generated her post-retirement appointment
as a UNESCO Ambassador. Of note also, is the proliferation of Home Town
Associations, most active when natural disasters hit home, as in diasporic
responses to the earthquake in Haiti.
Just as transnational Caribbean civil society has well-established historical
roots, so too the region’s supply chains go back centuries and include the flow of
forced as well as free people.
Supply chains around the region have evolved from barrels to containers and air-
freight/couriers using cell-phones and tracking devices. Each brand’s hubs are
distinctive, while personal postboxes are bought in Miami to be used as offshore
addresses; methods range from banana boats and Cable and Wireless to Flow
and B-mobile internet connections, commercial courier services and more.
The thin red line(s) of imperial connections based on traditional industrial tech-
nologies have been superseded, post-independence, by post-industrial, digital tech-
nologies leading to real and virtual hubs and spokes. Regional and global hubs rise
and fall around older and newer supply chains (Gibbon et al. 2010), impacted by
technological and infrastructural as well as security developments. Examples are
232 T.M. Shaw
the expansion of the Panama Canal and container ports, or Copa (as well as Carib-
bean Airlines): reflecting emerging economies vs. emerging powers, including
emerging cities. The whole process has been accelerated by the recent global crisis,
which has redefined vulnerability and resilience, especially for small island devel-
oping states (SIDS) (Cooper and Shaw 2013), thereby also reinforcing the impera-
tive of transnational governance as discussed below.
As Bronfman (2007) and others indicate, with modernity, the region has
‘advanced’ from spices to drugs, cutlasses to guns, pirates to gangs, gunpowder to
AK47s, depending on supply and demand, regulations and enforcement. Novel
forms of supply chains exploit the ‘dark’ side of globalization, including intellec-
tual property violations via pirated CDs and apps (Naim 2006). In response, extra-
territorial EU and US rules tend to impact both goods and services (Gibbon et al.
2010), compounded by diasporic demands/expectations in the North.
Jamaica occupies a unique place in the history of illicit flows because both
marijuana and cocaine move in and out of the island.
(Bronfman 2007: 12)
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the security challenges described above
resulted in a rethinking of what security is and how policy makers may respond
effectively to the challenges at hand (Bagley 2012; Bagley and Walker 1994;
Fiorentini and Peltzman 1997; Friman and Andreas 1999; Friman 2009; Madsen
2009). Symbolizing the burgeoning Southern ‘agency’ over drugs – as with other
contemporary issues such as global warming and resource extraction – the Latin
American Commission on Drugs and Democracy,15 chaired by a trio of eminent
ex-Presidents, has begun to redefine the discourse away from criminalization and
towards health, society, economy and so forth (Bagley 2012; Seelke 2011). In
turn, it spawned two further Commissions – Global and West African – all
seeking to contain the violence of the global inter-regional trade through decrim-
inalization: ‘towards a paradigm shift’ to end the unwinnable ‘war on drugs’.
In response to escalating violence, policy discussions have generated inter-
governmental institutions like the CARICOM Implementation Agency for Crime
and Security (CARICOM-IMPACS)16 and professional networks like the Asso-
ciation of Caribbean Commissioners of Police (ACCP)17 and the Caribbean
Association of Judicial Officers (CAJO)18 (Bowling 2010: 321–323). Mean-
while, as confidence in state security declined, the private security sector has
expanded and diversified, both at the national (e.g. Guardsman in Jamaica and
northern Caribbean)19 and the global level (e.g. G4S, see www.g4s.com,
accessed 30 June 2013): but by whom/how is it to be regulated? The Montreux
Caribbean post-2015: old versus new security 233
Document (2011), which proposes a code of conduct for private security com-
panies, offers one such framework, and many locally active companies have
signed up to it.
In 2012, UNODC estimated that the global drugs sector was worth over
US$300 billion or approximately 1 per cent of global GDP annually (UNODC
2012). The value of drugs increases the further they are away from production,
where their value is low; it multiplies 200 times between production and con-
sumption, especially when moving from South to North. Hence the spread of
narco-states or shadow states into the Caribbean, with their distinctive state–
economy balances (Harriott 2003; Glenny 2009; Griffiths 2004; Naim 2006;
Townsend 2009), including Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica and Puerto Rico. Legal
remittances (IBRD 2006; IDB 2009) and illegal money-laundering (Naylor
2006), have attracted G8 and OECD attention, leading to the aforementioned
Caribbean branch of FATF (UNODC 2010; Vlcek 2008). In the US, the drugs
sector is worth some US$200 billion annually including crime, health, policing
and productivity costs; in the EU the sector costs c. €35 billion annually. Hence
the imperative for ‘transnational governance’ responses to the challenges posed
by both formal/legal and informal/illegal transnational relations (Brown 2011;
Shaw 2010a).
Interestingly, based on late-2010 national surveys, the UNDP (2012a) has
itself begun to advocate the notion of ‘citizen security’ to advance freedom from
fear in the region, based on a regional survey at the start of the decade (UNDP
2012b). This goes beyond generic notions of collective human security/
development to reflect both the nature of personal/familial insecurity in the
contemporary Caribbean, and popular opinion about fear of crime, victimization
and limited confidence in the police and justice system (UNDP 2012b). The
concept constitutes a welcome Southern reaction to ‘global’ insecurities, as it
presents an authentic Caribbean voice. Human security focuses on collective
good; citizen security on individual/family/community, etc. as reflected in the
Caribbean Regional HDI already mentioned, which broadly repeats the annual
global analyses/rankings (UNDP 2012c). As Bowling (2010: 283) asserts: ‘The
greatest threat to security in the Caribbean is not the consumption of drugs, but
the armed violence and corruption that are endemic to illicit markets’.
Transnational governance
While private authority beyond the state has become a popular theme of
academic writing, the role of stakeholders in the Southern hemisphere as
objects and subjects of private transnational governance has rarely been
addressed in the literature.
(Dingwerth 2008: 607)
‘Transnational studies’ (Khagram and Levitt 2007) have further emphasized the
development of ‘transnational governance’ (Hale and Held 2011) as a generic
set of responses to novel and emerging ‘global’ issues (Shaw 2010a). Given the
234 T.M. Shaw
characteristic inclusion of non-state actors, the process may also be described as
‘private transnational governance’ (Dingwerth 2008), ‘non-state transnational
transfers’ (Brown 2011) or ‘non-state market-driven’ governance (Bernstein and
Cashore 2008), depending on discipline, case, period, etc. It is usually ‘hybrid’,
typically involving a range of heterogeneous actors, non-state as well as state,
acting in partnerships as in the classic International Campaign to Ban Landmines
that led to the ‘Ottawa Process’.20 The rich variety of such alliances, campaigns,
certification schemes, codes, commissions, councils, initiatives, networks, part-
nerships and processes, etc. is captured in tables in Dingwerth (2008: 628–630)
and Bernstein and Cashore (2008: 281–283).
Such transnational or ‘global’ governance can be treated as an extension or
contemporary form of established international law and international organiza-
tion, which have been primarily, even exclusively, intergovernmental. The new
approaches have evolved from the Ottawa and Kimberley Processes, through
Forestry and Fisheries Certification schemes, to the discrete initiatives now
brought together in the International Social and Environmental Accreditation
and Labelling Alliance.21
New forms of governance for the several Caribbeans may lead to alternative
futures by 2015 or the end of the current decade (Bishop and Payne 2010; Payne
and Sutton 2007): moving from orthodox small state alliances to address myriad
Caribbean/global concerns, including climate change (Shaw 2010a). Public or
network diplomacy by SIDS can maximize leverage internationally by using non-
state partners, such as private sector and civil society, media and culture (Cooper
and Shaw 2009; Shaw 2010a). Caribbean diasporas can impact a range of both
home- and host-country policies. New governance networks can develop, some-
times in rather unlikely sectors (cf. Iheduru 2011 on African examples). Further,
because of its numerous countries and hence votes, the Caribbean is active in inter-
regional processes such as CARIFORUM’s Economic Partnership dialogue with the
EU, besides links with MERCOSUR22 and the Organization of American States
within the hemisphere (Mace et al. 2010), and with the African Union and the Asso-
ciation of Southeast Asian Nations beyond it (De Lombaerde and Schulz 2009).
Based on this discussion, it is possible to identify two important trends. The
first concerns a redefinition of security in the region. Threats to national and
human security from ‘old’ and ‘new’ factors, such as climate change and gang
culture (Bronfman 2007: 63–85; Griffiths 2004; Naim 2006; Townsend 2009)
have promoted: (1) the novel notion of ‘citizen security’ (UNDP 2012), and (2)
‘transnational security’, as terrorism and crime cannot be defeated in one country
alone (Bowling 2010). This also means engaging new types of actors and inter-
ests, especially in soft law arenas like fisheries and forest certification (Bernstein
and Cashore 2008; Dingwerth 2008), while recognizing that illicit global sectors
are amongst the world’s freest and may involve major, under-recognized ‘multi-
national corporations’. Accordingly, Friman and Andreas argue that the ‘illicit
global economy’ needs to be recognized for its ‘transnational nature . . . and its
global scope’ and advocate ‘the inclusion of the illicit global economy in the
central debates within the international relations literature’ (Friman and Andreas
Caribbean post-2015: old versus new security 235
1999: 5, 17). As Bowling (2010: 315) concludes, transnational responses are
imperative in response to transitional crime:
More generally, an infinite range of issues and relations at all levels, involving
myriad, heterogeneous actors/coalitions/networks (Shaw et al. 2011), is trans-
forming the meaning of Caribbean regionalisms and security.
The second trend involves new small state vulnerabilities. Small polities, a
growing proportion of the world’s states, are increasingly affected by climate
change and illicit economies inter alia. How far should they be considered vul-
nerable rather than resilient in the changing global economic and environmental
context (Bishop and Payne 2010; Cooper and Shaw 2013)? These vulnerabilities
are closely related to the trends just mentioned in transnational relations, both
formal and informal, legal and otherwise (Khagram and Levitt 2007).
Notes
1 On the concept of small states and its relevance for understanding small state security,
see Chapter 1 in this volume.
2 See www.netris-acp.org (accessed 30 November 2013).
3 See www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/green/(accessed 30 November 2013).
4 UNU-CRIS, see www.cris.unu.edu (accessed 30 November 2013).
5 www.canari.org/ (accessed 30 November 2013).
6 www.caribbeanclimate.bz (accessed 30 November 2013).
7 www.acs-aec.org (accessed 30 November 2013).
8 www.caricom.org (accessed 30 November 2013).
9 In accordance with Chapter 2, this chapter understands societal security problems as
damaging society both physically and in its established peaceful routines, while
human security is understood as related to both ‘freedom from fear’ and ‘freedom
from want’. See Chapter 4 in this volume on societal security for a more comprehen-
sive discussion of the concept.
10 See, www.fatf-gafi.org/ (accessed 30 November 2013).
11 See, www. fatf-gafi.org/ (accessed 30 November 2013).
12 See www.eclac.org/portofspain (accessed 30 November 2013).
13 See, www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness.
14 On the latter, see Andrew Cooper (2011) on the rise and fall of gambling based in
Antigua, under bilateral US pressure, which the WTO was unable to contain.
15 See, www.cbdd.org.br/blog/tag/comissao-latino-americana-sobre-drogas-e-democracia/
(accessed 30 November 2013).
16 See, www.caricomimpacs.org/impacs/index.php?option=com_content&format=feed&
type=rss (accessed 30 November 2013).
17 See, www.accpolice.org/accp/default.asp?V_SITE_ID=6 (accessed 30 November
2013).
18 See, www.thecajo.org (accessed 30 November 2013).
19 See, www.guardsmangroup.com (accessed 30 November 2013).
20 See, www.icbl.org (accessed 30 November 2013).
21 See, www.isealalliance.org (accessed 30 November 2013).
22 See, www.mercosur.int (accessed 30 November 2013).
Bibliography
Aalto, P. (ed.) (2008) The EU-Russian Energy Dialogue: Europe’s Future Energy
Security, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bagley, B.B. (2012) Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime in the Americas: Major
Trends in the 21st Century, Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center.
Caribbean post-2015: old versus new security 237
Bagley, B. and Walker, W.O. (eds) (1994) Drug Trafficking in the Americas, Miami, FL:
University of Miami N-S Center.
Baranyi, S. (2011) ‘Introduction: Peacebuilding and Reconstruction in Haiti’, Journal of
Peacebuilding and Development, 6(3): 3–16.
Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. (2008) ‘The Two-Level Logic of Non-State Market Driven
Global Governance’, in Rittberger, V. and Nettesheim, M. (eds), Authority in the
Global Political Economy, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 276–313.
Bishop, M.L (2013) The Political Economy of Eastern Caribbean Development, London:
Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
Bishop, M.L and Payne, A. (2010) Caribbean Regional Governance and the Sovereignty/
Statehood Problem. Waterloo: CIGI, Caribbean paper no. 8.
Bowling, B. (2010) Policing the Caribbean: Transnational Security Cooperation in Prac-
tice Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brock, L., Holm, H.-H., Sorensen, G. and Stohl, M. (2012) Fragile States, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Bronfman, A. (2007) On the Move: The Caribbean since 1989, Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
Brown, S.S. (ed.) (2011) Transnational Transfers and Global Development, London: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Clarkson, A., Paheco-Pardo, R. and Talani, L.S. (eds) (2013) Dirty Cities: Globalization
and the Urban Underground, London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
Cooper, A.F (2011) Internet Gambling Offshore: Caribbean Struggles over Casino Capit-
alism, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooper, A.F. and Shaw, T.M. (eds.) (2013) The Diplomacies of Small States: Between
Vulnerability and Resilience (2nd expanded edition), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Lombaerde, P. and Schulz, M. (eds) (2009) The EU and World Regionalism: The
Makability of Regions in the 21st Century, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Dingwerth, K. (2008) ‘Private Transnational Governance and the Developing World: A
Comparative Perspective’, International Studies Quarterly, 52(3): 607–634.
Donais, T. and Knorr, A.C. (2013) ‘Peacebuilding from Below vs the Liberal Peace: The
Case of Haiti’, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 34(1): 54–69.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) (2009) Economic
Survey of the Caribbean 2008–2009, Port of Spain, October.
Fanta, E., Shaw, T.M. and Tang, V.T. (eds) (2013) Comparative Regionalisms for Devel-
opment in the 21st Century: insights from the Global South, Farnham: Ashgate Pub-
lishing.
Farer, T. (ed.) (1999) Transnational Crime in the Americas, New York: Routledge for
Inter-American Dialogue.
Fiorentini, G. and Peltzman, S. (eds) (1997) The Economics of Organized Crime, New
York: Cambridge University Press for CEPR.
Friman, H.R. (ed.) (2009) Crime and the Global Political Economy, Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Friman, H.R. and Andreas, P. (eds) (1999) The Illicit Global Economy and State Power,
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Gibbon, P., Ponte, S. and Lazaro, E. (eds) (2010) Global Agro-Food Trade and Stand-
ards: Challenges for Africa, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Graduate Institute Of International And Development Studies (GIIDS) (2009) Small Arms
Survey 2009: Shadows of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for GIIDS.
Girvan, N. (2005) ‘Reinterpreting the Caribbean’, in Pantin, D. (ed.) The Caribbean
Economy: A Reader, Kingston: Ian Randle, pp. 304–318.
238 T.M. Shaw
Glenny, M. (2009) McMafia: A Journey through the Global Criminal Underworld,
Toronto: Anansi.
Griffiths, I. (ed.) (2004) Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror: Challenge and Change,
Kingston: Ian Randle.
Hale, T. and Held, D. (eds) (2011) Handbook of Transnational Governance Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Harriott, A. (ed.) (2003) Understanding Crime in Jamaica, Mona: UWI Press.
Hettne, B. and Inotai, A. (1994) The New Regionalism: Implications for Global Develop-
ment and International Security, Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, February.
Hettne, B., Inotai, A. and Sunkel, O. (eds) (1999) Globalism and the New Regionalism,
London: Macmillan.
Hillman, R.S (2009) ‘Introduction’, in Hillman, R.S. and D’Agostino, T.J. (eds) Under-
standing the Contemporary Caribbean (2nd edition), Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner
Publishing, pp. 1–18.
Iheduru, O.C (2011) ‘ECOWAS’, in Shaw, T.M., Grant, J.A. and Cornelissen, C. (eds)
(2011) Ashgate Research Companion to Regionalisms, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB (2009) ‘Remittances in Times of Financial
Instability: Impact of the Financial Crisis on Remittances to Latin America and the
Caribbean’, available online at: www.iadb.org/en/publications/publication-detail,7101.
html?id=68048 (accessed 30 June 2013).
International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (2006) Global Economic
Prospects: Economic Implications of Remittances and Migration, Washington, DC:
IBRD.
Khagram, S. and Levitt, P. (eds) (2007) The Transnational Studies Reader, New York:
Routledge.
Kshetri, N. (2013) Cybercrime and Cybersecurity in the Global South, London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Kyung-Sup, C., Fine, B. and Weiss, L. (eds) (2012) Developmental Politics in Transition:
The Neoliberal Era and Beyond, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Latin American Initiative on Drugs and Democracy (2009) ‘Drugs and Democracy:
Toward a Paradigm Shift’, statement by the Latin American Commission on Drugs and
Democracy, Washington, DC: LAIDD.
Laursen, F. (ed.) (2010) Comparative Regional Integration: Europe and Beyond,
Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Mace, G., Cooper, A.F. and Shaw, T.M. (eds) (2010) Inter-American Cooperation at a
Crossroads, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Madsen, F. (2009) Transnational Organized Crime, Abingdon: Routledge.
Mohammed, P. (2009) Imaging the Caribbean: Culture and Visual Translation, Oxford:
Macmillan Education.
Montreux Document on private military and security companies, signed 17 September
2008, available online at: www.eda.admin.ch/psc (accessed 15 December 2012).
Muggah, R. (2005) ‘Securing Haiti’s Transition: Reviewing Human Insecurity and the
Prospects for Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration’, Geneva: Small Arms
Survey, occasional paper no. 14.
Naim, M. (2006) Illicit: How Smugglers, Traffickers and Copycats are Hijacking the
Global Economy, New York: Anchor.
Naylor, R.T. (2005) Wages of Crime: Black Markets, Illegal Finance and the Underworld
Economy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.
O’Neill, J. (2011) The Growth Map: Economic Opportunity in the BRICs and Beyond,
New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
Caribbean post-2015: old versus new security 239
Palan, R., Murphy, R. and Chavagneux, C. (eds) (2010) Tax Havens: How Globalization
Really Works, Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.
Pantin, D. (ed.) (2005) The Caribbean Economy: A Reader, Kingston: Ian Randle.
Payne, A. and Sutton, P. (2007) ‘Repositioning the Caribbean within Globalization’,
Waterloo: CIGI, Caribbean paper no. 1.
Reis, M. (2004) ‘Theorizing Diaspora: Perspectives on “Classical” and “Contemporary”
Diaspora’, International Migration, 42(2): 41–60.
Scher, P.W. (ed.) (2009) Perspectives on the Caribbean: A Reader in Culture, Migration
and Representation, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Seelke, C.R. (2011) Latin American and Caribbean: Illicit Drug Trafficking and US
Counterdrug Programs, Washington, DC: Congress Research Service, May.
Shaw, T.M. (2010a) ‘Commonwealth and Global Development: Contributions to Private
Transnational Governance’, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 48(1): 91–111.
Shaw, T.M. (2010b) ‘New Regionalisms Post-EPAs: What Prospects for Sustainable
Development in Africa and the Caribbean?’, in Laursen, F. (ed.) Comparative Regional
Integration: Europe and beyond, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 193–211.
Shaw, T.M. (2012) ‘Energy and CSR in TandT in the Second Decade of the 21st
Century’, in Sagebien, J. and Lindsay, N. (eds) Governance Ecosystems: CSR in the
Latin American Mining Sector, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 245–259.
Shaw, T.M. (2013) ‘How Many Caribbeans in 2020: Vulnerable? Resilient? Informal
and/or Illegal?’, in Singh, P. and Izarali, M.R. (eds) The Contemporary Caribbean:
Issues and Challenges, New Delhi: Shipra, pp. 1–15.
Shaw, T.M., Grant, J.A. and Cornelissen, S. (eds) (2011) Ashgate Research Companion
to Regionalisms, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Singh, P. and Izarali, M.R. (eds) (2013) The Contemporary Caribbean: Issues and Chal-
lenges, New Delhi: Shipra.
Soderbaum, F. and Shaw, T.M. (2003) Theories of New Regionalism: A Palgrave reader,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thomas-Hope, E. (ed.) (2009) Freedom and Constraint in Caribbean Migration and
Diaspora, Kingston: Ian Randle.
Townsend, D. (2009) ‘No Other Life: Gangs, Guns and Governance in Trinidad and
Tobago’, Geneva: Small Arms Survey, working paper no. 8.
UNDP (2009) Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility
and Development, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
UNDP (2012a) ‘Caribbean Human Development Report 2012: Human Development and
the Shift to better Citizen Security’, Port of Spain.
UNDP (2012b) ‘Caribbean Human Development Report 2012: UNDP Caribbean Security
Survey 2010: Summary of the Findings’, Port of Spain.
UNDP (2012c) ‘Caribbean Human Development Report 2012: Estimating a CARICOM
Human Development Index’, Port of Spain.
UNDP (2013) Human Development Report 2013: The Rise of the South: Human Pro-
gress in a Diverse World, New York.
UNEP (2008) ‘Climate Change in the Caribbean: The Challenge of Adaptation’, Panama,
October.
UNODC (2010) ‘Annual Report 2010: Promoting Health, Security and Justice’, Vienna.
UNODC (2012) ‘World Drug Report 2012’, Vienna.
Vlcek, W. (2008) Offshore Finance and Small States: Sovereignty, Size and Money,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
240 T.M. Shaw
Wiltshire, R. (2006) ‘Implications of Transnational Migration for Nationalism: The
Caribbean Example’, Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences Volume 645: Towards a
Transnational Perspective on Migration: 175–187.
World Bank (2008) Migration and Remittances Factbook 2008, Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Zank, W. (ed.) (2009) Clash or Cooperation of Civilizations? Overlapping Integration
and Identities, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
14 The security concerns of designed
spaces
Size matters
Godfrey Baldacchino
Introduction
Recent years have seen a crescendo of complaints by the OECD, the EU, gov-
ernments of large countries and ‘tax justice’ organizations vilifying the practice
of offshore finance:
Inordinate impacts
Small states have higher economic elasticities: they tend to grow faster and have
higher productivity growth than larger countries, but their economic depressions
also tend to be deeper and more pronounced (Baldacchino 1998):
The security concerns of designed spaces 245
The opening of a garment factory employing 200 people is no big deal to
most territories, but it could significantly reduce unemployment in a smaller
jurisdiction. Of course, the converse applies as well: the closure of a fish-
processing plant employing 200 people could be seen as a national disaster.
(Baldacchino 2011: 238)
Small states also generally secure better terms in foreign aid: one of the most
well-established generalizations in the foreign assistance field is the so-called
‘small country effect’, according to which aid per head increases, and the terms
of aid improve, as the size of the country declines (Streeten 1993: 200). ‘A few
million dollars go a long way on a speck of land’ (The Economist 1991).
Given these reasons, one should not be surprised to note that what are, in
absolute terms, modest investments become disproportionately significant in
small economies. Nauru, a country with some 12,000 citizens, has gone from
being one of the world’s richest countries to one of the world’s poorest on a
per capita basis. When the detention facility was opened for the Australian
Government, it ‘pumped so much money into Nauru’s economy that it soon
came to account for a fifth of the nation’s revenue’ (Squires 2008). Small eco-
nomies are typically more volatile, with more erratic episodes of boom and
bust, than larger neighbours (e.g. Carse 1998, comparing the Isle of Man to
the United Kingdom).
Consider next the inordinate impact of a high-profile US base, with some
5,000–6,000 personnel located in a small country where over half the resident
population consists of foreigners. Tensions have occasionally been running
high with regard to the stationing of the US military base (and home to the US
Fifth Fleet) in Bahrain, the smallest state in the strategic Persian Gulf. First
the Emirate, then the (short-lived) National Assembly, had given notice to the
US to withdraw its military presence from Bahrain during the 1973 Egypt–
Israeli conflict, and again in summer 1974 (Winckler 2007: 67–74). More
recently, high levels of unemployment and the continuous presence of the US
base ‘have given radical Sunni and Shi’a Islamist groups a reason for discon-
tent and led to rapid growth in their popularity’ (Karolak 2010: 10–11). The
minority Sunni Al Khalifa monarchy in Bahrain may have succeeded in tem-
porarily crushing mass protests by the majority Shi’ites and driving them out
of the capital Manama. However, ‘the frustration and anger in Bahrain con-
tinues to bubble to the surface in protests’ more than a year after a Saudi-
backed crackdown (Dorsey 2012).
Modest social events can also become excessively noteworthy in small island
politics; various episodes highlight the more ‘combustible’ socio-political atmo-
sphere prevalent in small states (e.g. Richards 1982; Baker 1992), where meas-
ures that do not meet public support cannot be located out of sight, and out of
mind. Take Cyprus and Malta: they have been receiving boatloads of irregular
migrants arriving from Africa and the Middle East. The impact of even modest
(but socially very visible) arrivals can be disproportionately significant, as policy
makers and the media often argue:
246 G. Baldacchino
As Maltese policy makers often emphasize, in particular vis-à-vis other EU
members states, relative to population size, an inflow of 2,000 immigrants
into Malta equates to more than 400,000 arriving in Germany, or to around
300,000 entering France, the UK, or Italy.
(Lutterbeck 2009: 121)
Non-feasibility of transfer
Moreover, both these countries (and Malta more so than Cyprus) have limited
land areas and relatively very high population densities: once the irregular immi-
grants are landed, there is no hinterland, no ‘Christmas Island scenario’ to which
they can be despatched. Furthermore, and according to the Dublin II Agreement
of the European Union (EU), meant to prevent ‘asylum shopping’, an irregular
migrant’s application for asylum has to be handled by the EU member state
where that migrant was first landed: thus, once disembarked in the EU, irregular
migrants are expected to stay in their country of landing. No wonder both Cyprus
and Malta disagree with these provisions which have created a disproportionate
burden on EU border states, and especially on the two small Mediterranean
island countries (see Sansone 2011).
In the Pacific, a low-lying atoll archipelago state like Tuvalu struggles with
the implications of climate change and sea level rise. Whereas residents of other
islands facing inundation, erosion, increasing storm intensity and encroaching
salinity have been able to relocate elsewhere within their own country (as did the
Carteret Islanders in Papua New Guinea – Monbiot 2009), the Tuvaluans do not
have that luxury: their whole country is prone to sea level rise – nine atolls, with
a total land area of 26 km2 (see also the discussion of environmental security in
Chapter 5 of this volume). Unsurprisingly, Tuvaluans are voting with their feet:
there are already many more settled elsewhere in such countries as New Zealand
and Australia than remain on the territory of their own small state. Opportunities
for migration, under a variety of classes, to these destination countries are act-
ively sought.
In the eastern Caribbean, small island states like Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia
and St Vincent have had to radically shift their economies, highly dependent for
decades on the export of bananas under preferential arrangements (involving a
duty free quota per country) to the United Kingdom and the European Union,
following a ruling by the World Trade Organization that had been instigated by
The security concerns of designed spaces 247
the USA and more competitive banana growers in Central America, and which
declared such arrangements discriminatory. Total banana exports still accounted
for 30 to 60 per cent of all merchandise exports from these island states in the
1980s. Such a heavy reliance on one major export crop subjects such small econ-
omies to trade dependence and vulnerability to various forms of external shocks,
which include price fluctuations, crop diseases and natural disasters (see Wil-
liams and Darius 1998). Such island states have been obliged to shift to alterna-
tive economic activities (cocoa, nutmeg, tourism, marijuana) in a relatively short
period of time, with their small economies struggling to make up for the loss of
earnings from the banana industry (Grynberg 2006).
But it is not easy for a small economy to avoid an inordinate dependence on
one export item. The best economic scenario to aspire to is one that sees the
economy shuttling from one form of vulnerability to another (see also the dis-
cussions of economic security in Chapters 2 and 3 of this volume); rarely are
there any robust, credibly alternative, resilient sectors that can boldly take up the
slack. Consider as an example the economic yo-yoing of the Caribbean island
state of St Lucia, set up as a plantation economy following European discovery.
Sugar drove the plantation economy for many decades but was eclipsed by coal
(1880s–1930s), which was in turn overtaken by bananas during the 1960s;
tourism then surpassed the banana ‘green gold’ in revenue in 1993 (see Ellis
2005).
Differently dangerous
In the case of a sub-national jurisdiction like the Turks and Caicos, where White-
hall maintains final executive authority, a serious situation can be, and has been,
tackled by an extra-territorial decision, unpalatable though that may be. But such
measures are by definition unavailable in the case of sovereign states. Inter-
national law, as enshrined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention and the various
principles governing the workings of the United Nations, precludes interference
by states in the internal workings of other sovereign states, irrespective of their
size. Indeed, one of the arguments brought forward in the period after the end of
World War II, against the independence of ‘micro-states’, was that they could
not be trusted to act as responsible states; then, the fear was that a Malta, an
Iceland or a Vanuatu could destabilize finely balanced ‘Cold War’ politics (see
Baldacchino 2009; and Premdas and Howard 1985). In no uncertain terms, The
Economist (1970) called Malta and Iceland ‘damned dots’ for daring to rattle
superpower balance in the early 1970s.
Now, the dangers are different. Neighbouring, larger powers seek to uphold the
security of small states (and indirectly their own) by supporting security pro-
grammes, training police and drug squad personnel, providing intelligence, soft-
ware and hardware (such as surveillance technology, coastguard vessels,
search-and-rescue helicopters). But there are real limits to the effectiveness of such
measures. Ultimately, a serious crisis (social, political, economic, environmental,
The security concerns of designed spaces 249
or a toxic combination of these) will loom in any given small state; this is not a
question of if, but when. Such a situation – as with the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, or
the 2006 coup in Fiji, and, eventually, global warming refugees from Tuvalu? – is
likely to trigger, as a bare minimum, a wave of out-migration, with the most mobile
citizens of the affected small state heading towards richer, more stable, neighbour-
ing countries. It is such access to residence, labour markets and eventual citizen-
ship that remains at the top of the list of aspirations of many small state citizens.
This explains why many sub-national jurisdictions – including some that could
become independent if they wanted to – prefer not to become independent, and
instead consolidate their integration within larger, richer states: the November 2012
decision by Puerto Ricans for their territory to become the fifty-first state of the US
is moot (see The Guardian UK 2012).
Another development that once again puts small states at the forefront of
innovative governance is the growth of the electronic-gaming industry (Bald-
acchino 2010: 78). Attractive locations from which to operate online casinos and
poker rooms now include Alderney, Curaçao, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and
Matsu islands (Taiwan), but also the sovereign states of Antigua and Barbuda
and Malta (On-Line Casino Locator 2008). Companies that are granted a licence
to operate are typically not permitted to take bets from the citizens of their
respective island base (e.g. On-Line Casino City 2008). Small jurisdictions are
thus attractive to gaming companies, since only a fraction of their potential client
base is legally excluded. (For the small jurisdictions themselves, any high social
impact on gamblers from other countries is, presumably, not their concern.)
Meanwhile, and in spite of various attempts at a crackdown, the operations of
finance capital show no signs of abating, and one should seriously question
whether the continued existence of offshore finance centres owes much to their
valued services within the global political economy. Indeed, the design of legis-
lation by onshore states is just as complicit in the positive and negative effects of
the offshore economy as are the small sovereign economies that host offshore
finance centres (Vlcek 2009). Who, then, is posing the security threat?
Conclusion
‘The openness of small states . . . is . . . structural, and may not be ameliorated by
policy or strategy of any kind’ (Worrell 2012: 6). ‘Governmentality’ can be
problematic when a state finds itself structurally prone to exogenous shocks and
‘invasions’ that can impact on the very fabric of the state. Until a few decades
ago, domestic and international observers would have been concerned with the
likelihood of a Falklands (invaded by Argentina in 1982 and then recovered by
Britain following a military operation); or a Grenada (victim of a violent coup
and then a US-led military intervention in 1983); or a Kuwait (invaded by Iraq in
1990). Today, the temptations versus the practical and moral risks of what have
been termed as the ‘pseudo-development strategies’ of small states pose a more
bewildering dilemma calling for non-traditional policy responses (Baldacchino
1993). The status of small states as sites of imaginative geographies, and the
250 G. Baldacchino
description of their citizens and policy makers as norm entrepreneurs, could be
fruitful lessons in how necessity can prove to be the mother of invention. Indeed,
as Streeten (1993) has cleverly observed, most small states enjoying long-term
prosperity (including Barbados, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta and Singa-
pore) have few exploitable local and natural resources. In a world gripped by a
wave of neo-liberalism, and in spite of their often assumed role as followers and
powerless pawns in international relations, small states qua states have consider-
able wriggle room for policy manoeuvre, in spite of the visible chagrin of their
larger, notionally more powerful neighbours.
Let us end with another cameo. This time, the focus is on the United Nations
and its Security Council, where attempts to its reform have clashed with the veto
powers of its ‘permanent five’ (P5) members: China, France, Russia, the United
Kingdom and the United States. But in March 2006, a group of five different
countries – Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland –
tabled a resolution to the UN General Assembly, calling for reform to the
working methods of the Security Council: limiting the use of the veto, and
enhancing transparency and accountability (United Nations 2006; see also
MacQueen 2010; Trachsler 2010). These called themselves the ‘S5’: the small
five. Interestingly, this initiative has received a surprising level of support from
some influential countries, including Argentina, Canada and Japan. Of course,
the P5 vetoed it; but here we are still talking about the proposal, and its merits.
‘Soft power’ or ‘weak power’ is especially potent when wielded by those least
expected to (Nye 2004; Lindell and Persson 1986); here, size does matter.
Note
1 See also Chapter 13 in this volume.
Bibliography
Adler-Nissen, R. and Gad, U.P. (eds) (2013) European Integration and Postcolonial
Sovereignty Games: EU’s Overseas Countries and Territories, London: Routledge.
Agamben, G. (2005) State of Exception, translated by K. Attell, Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Baker, R.A. (1992) Public Administration in Small and Island States, West Hartford, CT:
Kumarian Press.
Baldacchino, G. (1993) ‘Bursting the Bubble: The Pseudo-development Strategies of
Microstates’, Development and Change, 24(1): 29–51.
Baldacchino, G. (1998) ‘Far Better to Serve in Heaven than to Reign in Hell: Malta’s
Logic of Relating to the European Union’, in Baldacchino, G. and Greenwood, R. (eds)
Competing Strategies of Economic Development from Small Islands, Charlottetown,
PE: Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, pp. 213–238.
Baldacchino, G. (2009) ‘Thucydides or Kissinger? A Critical Review of Smaller State
Diplomacy’, in Shaw, T.M. and Cooper, A.F. (eds) The Diplomacies of Small States:
Between Vulnerability and Resilience in the Global Political Economy, Basingstoke,
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–40.
The security concerns of designed spaces 251
Baldacchino, G. (2010) Island Enclaves: Offshoring Strategies, Creative Governance and
Subnational Island Jurisdictions, Montreal QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Baldacchino, G. (2011) ‘Surfers of the Ocean Waves: Change Management, Intersectoral
Migration and the Economic Development of Small Island States’, Asia Pacific View-
point, 52(3): 236–246.
Baldacchino, G. (2012) ‘Governmentality is all the Rage: The Strategy Games of Small
Jurisdictions’, The Round Table: Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs,
101(3): 235–251.
Baldacchino, G. and Milne, D. (2008) The Case for Non-sovereignty: Lessons from Sub-
national Island Jurisdictions, London: Routledge.
Bartmann, B. (2007) ‘Island War and Security’, in Baldacchino, G. (ed.) A World of
Islands: An Island Studies Reader, Charlottetown PE and Luqa, Malta: Institute of
Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island and Agenda Academic,
pp. 295–322.
Bigo, D. (2007) ‘Detention of Foreigners, States of Exception, and the Social Practices of
Control of the Panopticon’, in Rajaram, P.K. and Grundy Warr, C. (eds) Borderscapes:
Hidden Geographies and Politics at Territory’s Edge, Minneapolis MN: University of
Minnesota Press, pp. 3–34.
Braun, B. (2000) ‘Producing Vertical Territory: Geology and Governmentality in late
Victorian Canada’, Ecumene/Cultural Geographies, 7(1): 7–46.
Bullington, B. (1991) ‘A Smugglers’ Paradise: Cocaine Trafficking through the
Bahamas’, Crime, Law and Social Change, 16(1): 59–83.
Carse, S. (1998) ‘Sustaining Small Island Development: Isle of Man’, in Baldacchino, G.
and Greenwood. R. (eds) Competing Strategies of Economic Development from Small
Islands, Charlottetown, PE: Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward
Island, pp. 268–291.
Christensen, J. and Hampton, M.P. (1999). ‘A Legislature for Hire: The Capture of the
State in Jersey’s Offshore Finance Centre’, in Hampton, M.P. and Abbott, J.P. (eds)
Offshore Finance Centres and Tax Havens: The Rise of Global Capital, Basingstoke:
Macmillan, pp. 166–191.
Clarke, C. and Payne, T. (eds) (1987) Politics, Security and Development in Small States,
London: Allen & Unwin.
Connell, J. (2006) ‘Nauru: The first failed Pacific State?’, The Round Table: The Com-
monwealth Journal of International Affairs, 95(383): 47–63.
Crocombe, R. (2007) Asia in the Pacific Islands: Replacing the West, Suva, Fiji Islands:
ISP Publications, University of the South Pacific.
Dorsey, J.M. (2012) ‘Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi: Pressures for Reform’, MidEastPosts.
com, 29 October, available online at: http://mideastposts.com/2012/10/jordan-bahrain-
and-saudi-pressures-for-reform/ (accessed 17 May 2013).
Ellis, G. (2005) ‘St Lucia’s Declining Banana Trade’, BBC News, 2 August, available
online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4737473.stm (accessed 17 May
2013).
Fletcher, G.P. (2004) ‘Black Hole in Guantánamo Bay’, Journal of International Crimi-
nal Justice, 2(1): 121–132.
Foucault, M. (1988) ‘The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom’, in J. Ber-
nauer and D. Rasmussen (eds) The Final Foucault, Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds)
The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago IL: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 87–104.
252 G. Baldacchino
Gallienne, T. (2007) Guernsey in the 21st Century: A View from the First Decade, Guern-
sey: Gallant Publishing.
Government of Singapore (2012) ‘Small States’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, available
online at: www.mfa.gov.sg/content/mfa/international_issues/small_states.html (accessed
17 May 2013).
Grynberg, R. (2006) WTO at the Margins: Small States and the Multilateral Trading
System, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guardian (UK) (2012) ‘Puerto Ricans Favour Statehood, Poll Shows’, 8 November,
available online at: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/08/puerto-ricans-favour-
statehood (accessed 17 May 2013).
Hampton, M.P. and Christensen, J. (2002) ‘Offshore Pariahs? Small Island Economies,
Tax Havens, and the Re-configuration of Global Finance’, World Development 30(9):
1657–1673.
Hampton, M.P. and Christensen, J. (2010) ‘Small Island Economies: Exploring Altern-
ative Development Strategies to Hosting Offshore Finance’, Kent Business School
working paper no. 227, available online at: www.taxjustice.net/cms/upload/pdf/
Hampton__Christensen_what_next_for_OFCs_WP227_July_2010.pdf (accessed 17
May 2013).
Handel, M. (1981) Weak States in the International System, London: Frank Cass.
Hindess, B. (1996) Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault, Oxford: Blackwell.
Ingebritsen, C. (2002) ‘Norm Entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s Role in World Politics’,
Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1): 11–23.
Karolak, M. (2010) ‘Religion in a Political Context: The Case of the Kingdom of
Bahrain’, Asia Journal of Global Studies, 4(1): 4–20, available online at: http://ajgs.
org/index.php/AJGS/article/view/77/115 (accessed 17 May 2013).
Kelman, I., Davies, M., Mitchell, T., Orr, I. and Conrich, B. (2006) ‘Island Disaster Para-
diplomacy in the Commonwealth’, The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of
International Affairs, 95(386): 561–574.
Keohane, R.O. (1969) ‘Lilliputians’ Dilemmas: Small States in International Politics’,
International Organization, 23(2): 291–310.
Kuelhs, T. (1996) Beyond Sovereign Territory, Minneapolis MN: University of Minne-
sota Press.
Lindell, U. and Persson, S. (1986) ‘The Paradox of Weak State Power: A Research and
Literature Overview’, Conflict and Cooperation, 21(2): 79–97.
Lutterbeck, D. (2009) ‘Small Frontier Island: Malta and the Challenge of Irregular Immi-
gration’, Mediterranean Quarterly, 20(1): 119–144.
Machiavelli, N. (1908 [1515]) The Prince, translated by Marriott, W.K., available online
at: www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm (accessed 17 May 2013).
McKenzie, D. (2012) ‘Human Security and the Offshore Financial System: Underdevel-
opment, Corruption and Arms’, available online at: http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/Mac-
kenzie2012.pdf (accessed 17 May 2013).
MacQueen, B. (2010) ‘Muslim States and Reform of the United Nations Security
Council’, Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies (in Asia), 4(3): 47–64.
Monbiot, G. (2009) ‘Climate Change Displacement has Begun; But Hardly Anyone has
Noticed’, Guardian (UK), 8 May, available online at: www.guardian.co.uk/environ-
ment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/07/monbiot-climate-change-evacuation (accessed 17
May 2013).
Mountz, A. (2011). ‘The Enforcement Archipelago: Detention, Haunting, and Asylum on
Islands’, Political Geography, 30(3): 118–128.
The security concerns of designed spaces 253
Mouritzen, H. (1997) External Danger and Democracy: Old Nordic Lessons and new
European Challenge, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing.
Mouritzen, H., and Wivel, A. (2005) The Geopolitics Of Euro-Atlantic Integration,
London: Routledge.
Neumann, I.B., and Gstöhl, S. (2006) ‘Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World’, in Ingebritsen,
C., Neumann, I.B., Gstöhl, S. and Beyer, J. (eds) Small States in International Rela-
tions, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press/Reykjavik: University of Iceland
Press, pp. 3–36.
Nye, J.S. Jr (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, New York:
Public Affairs.
On-Line Casino City (2008) ‘Malta’, available online at: http://online.casinocity.com/
jurisdictions/malta/ (accessed 17 May 2013).
On-Line Casino Locator (2008) ‘Where are internet casinos located?’, available online at:
www.online-casinos.com/beginnersguide/faq6.asp (accessed 17 May 2013).
Palan, R. (1998) ‘Trying to Have Your Cake and Eating It: How and why the State
System has Created Offshore’, International Studies Quarterly, 42(4): 625–644.
Palan, R. (2002) ‘Tax Havens and the Commercialisation of State Sovereignty’, Inter-
national Organisation, 56(1): 151–176.
Palan, R., Murphy, R. and Chavagneux, C. (2010) Tax Havens: How Globalization Really
Works, Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Premdas, R.R. and Howard, M.C. (1985) ‘Vanuatu’s Foreign Policy: Contradictions and
Constraints’, Australian Outlook, 39(3): 177–186.
Reid-Henry, S. (2007) ‘Exceptional Sovereignty? Guantánamo Bay and the Re-colonial
Present’, Antipode, 39(4): 627–648.
Richards, J. (1982) ‘Politics in Small, Independent Communities: Conflict or Consen-
sus?’, Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 20(2): 155–171.
Rickli, J.-M. (2008) ‘European Small States’ Military Policies after the Cold War: From
Territorial to Niche Strategies’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(3):
307–325.
Ridgell, R. (1995) Pacific Nations and Territories: The islands of Micronesia, Melanesia,
and Polynesia, Honolulu, HI: Pacific Region Educational Laboratory.
Roberts, S. (1994) ‘Fictitious Capital, Fictitious Spaces: The Geography of Offshore Fin-
ancial Flows’, in Corbridge, S., Martin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds) Money, Power and
Space, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 91–115.
Said, E. (1979) Orientalism, New York: Vintage.
Sansone, K. (2011) ‘Asylum Ruling “strengthens” Malta’s Stand for Change’, The Sunday
Times of Malta, 23 January, available online at: www.timesofmalta.com/articles/
view/20110123/local/asylum-ruling-strengthens-malta-s-stand-for-change.346623
(accessed 17 May 2013).
Schaffer, B. (1975). ‘The Politics of Dependence’, in Selwyn, P. (ed.) Development
Policy in Small Countries, London: Croom Helm, pp. 24–53.
Squires, N. (2008) ‘Nauru Scrambles as Australia Closes Island’s Detention Center’,
Christian Science Monitor, 26 March, available online at: www.csmonitor.com/World/
Asia-Pacific/2008/0326/p04s02-woap.html (accessed 17 May 2013).
Streeten, P.P. (1993) ‘Special Problems of Small Countries’, World Development, 21(2):
197–202.
Teerling, J. and King, R. (2012) ‘Of Hubs and Hinterlands: Cyprus as an Insular Space of
Overlapping Diasporas’, Island Studies Journal, 7(1): 19–48.
The Economist (1971) ‘Damned Dots’, London: The Economist Newspapers, 31 July, p. 16.
254 G. Baldacchino
The Economist (1991) ‘The Pacific Idea’, London: The Economist Intelligence Unit, 16
March.
Trachsler, D. (2010) ‘UN Security Council Reform: A Gordian Knot?’, CSS Analysis in
Security Policy, no. 72, Zurich: ETH Zurich, Center for Security Studies, available
online at: http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:1585/eth-1585–01.pdf (accessed
17 May 2013).
United Nations (2006) ‘General Assembly Resumes Debate on Security Council Reform,
with Several Divergent Proposals Still under Consideration’, General Assembly
GA/10484, New York: United Nations, available online at: www.un.org/News/Press/
docs/2006/ga10484.doc.htm (accessed 17 May 2013).
Vlcek, W. (2009) ‘Behind an Offshore Mask: Sovereignty Games in the Global Political
Economy’, Third World Quarterly, 30(8): 1465–1481.
Williams, O.H. and Darius, R. (1998) Bananas, the WTO and Adjustment Initiatives in
the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Area, Mimeo, 16pp, Castries, St Lucia: Eastern
Caribbean Central Bank, available online at: www.eccb-centralbank.org/PDF/Rpann98.
pdf (accessed 17 May 2013).
Winckler, D.F. (2007) Amirs, Admirals and Desert Sailors: Bahrain, the U.S. Navy, and
the Arabian Gulf, Annapolis, MD: US Naval Institute Press.
Worrell, D. (2012) ‘Policies for Stabilization and Growth in Small Very Open Eco-
nomies’, occasional paper no. 85, Washington, DC: Group of Thirty, available online
at: www.group30.org/images/PDF/ReportPDFs/OP85.pdf (accessed 17 May 2013).
Index
9/11 see September 11 terrorist attacks autonomy 6–7, 32, 109, 116, 153, 193–4,
205, 229
Abkhazia 33, 155–6 Azerbaijan 156
Āboltiņa, Solvita 118
Afghanistan, Iraq and see Iraq and Bahamas 244, 248
Afghanistan Bahrain 244–5
African Union 30 Bailes, A.J.K. 176
Albania: corruption progress 135; Baku-Tbilisi-Çeyhan pipeline project 156
demographic trend 133; growth rate Baldacchino, G. 60–1
133; NATO membership 138; state Bali 203
weakness ranking 134 Balkans: Icelandic response 104; Western,
Alderney 249 see also Western Balkans
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) Baltic states: adoption of the euro 118;
89 cyber-security 114, 121–3; and the EU
Anckar, D. 168–9, 174 38, 113–14, 117–19, 121; invasions 117;
Andorra 167, 170, 173, 176–7, 179–80 NATO and EU membership 113, 117;
Andreas, P. 234 OECD membership 122; political
Ansip, Andrus 118 identity 119; rebirth of independence
Antigua 249 116; Russian interest 123; security
Armenia 156 environment see Baltic states security
Armstrong, H. 61, 169 environment; security governance
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian 123–4; Soviet annexation 116; see also
Nations) 216–18, 234 Estonia
Asian financial crisis 215 Baltic states security environment:
Asian small states: colonialist perspective institutionalized collaboration 116;
203–4; constructivist perspective 203; issues 113; new security challenges
historical perspective 202–6; minimum 120–4; Nordic–Baltic relations 119–20;
prerequisites for a society hospitable to overview 113–15; regional affiliation
206; as political and temporal choices 119–20; size, identity and
constructions 219–20; sources of relationships 115–16; Western
temporal construction 219; see also engagement vs autonomy/neutrality
Singapore; Sri Lanka 116–19
Asian tsunami: Danish response 103; bandwaggoning 26, 35, 96, 99, 178
Finnish response 98–9; Swedish Bangladesh 85
response 75, 100 Barbuda 249
asylum shopping 246 Barnett, J. 81–2, 85
Austria, Congress of Vienna recognition 3 Bartlett, W. 137
256 Index
Bartmann, B. 172 overview 224–6; transnational trends
Beeby, Alfred 176, 192–3 see Caribbean transnational trends;
Bernstein, S. 234 vulnerability to transnational criminality
Bertram, G. 60–1 225
Bessarabia 150 Caribbean transnational trends: civil
Betsill, M.M. 82–3 society 230; crime networks 232–3;
Betzold, C. 89 families 230; governance 233–5; supply
Bishop, M.L. 61 chains 231–2
Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH): corruption Cashore, B. 234
progress 135; demographic trend 133; casino capitalism 62
EU crisis management and security role Chang, H.-J. 188
139; EU Structured Dialogue 142; lack Chernobyl disaster 81
of political consensus 134; NATO China 9, 85, 203–4, 209, 211–12, 215, 224
membership progress 138; public Christensen, J. 247
expectations of peaceful future 131; Christopher, A.J. 169
radical Islamic infiltration 137; state citizen security 223–5, 229, 233–4
weakness ranking 134 civil forces, need for military cooperation
Botswana: development trajectory see with 36
Botswana’s development trajectory; climate change: economic opportunities
factions of the ruling elite 189; first created by 86–7; and economic security
President 189; mineral wealth 187; 84; impact on small archipelagic states
population at independence 187 243, 246; mitigation and adaptation
Botswana’s development trajectory 85–6; Nordic states’ perspective 106;
189–90; and bureaucratic autonomy small island developing states’
193–5; centrepiece and blueprint 191; vulnerability to 86; and small state
and citizen participation 193; and civil vulnerability 34; threats to international
service training 193; and security 85
developmentalist ideology 191; the Cold War: Asian perspective 204–5,
economic diversification attempts 209, 215–16; Georgian/Moldovan
195–6; elite alliance’s role 189–90; perspectives 149; Icelandic perspective
Financial Assistance Programme (FAP) 177; Nordic perspective 96–7, 107–8
195; growth stimulating institutions 193; Collier, P. 135
and the Landell-Mills affair 192; colonialism 202–3, 205, 208, 223
parastatals 195; and the retention of commodity volatility, and vulnerability 56
expatriates 193 Common Agricultural Policy 178
Bowling, B. 233, 235 comprehensive security 28, 99
Briguglio, L. 50 conflict diamonds 195
Bronfman, A. 232 Confucian culture 203
Buddhism 202, 206–7 Congress of Vienna 3
Burma 205 conscription, Nordic states 98, 100, 103, 108
Bush, George W. 29, 117 construction bubbles 59
Buzan, B. 66, 68–9, 74 Copenhagen School 28
Cordina, G. 56
Cambodia 205, 216 corruption: Bahamian perspective 248;
the Caribbean: banana industry 246–7; Baltic perspective 120; Botswanan
drug trade 223–5, 227, 229, 232–3; perspective 193, 197, 199n1; Caribbean
failed states rankings 229; greatest threat perspective 233; closeness and 72; and
to security 233; historical perspective economic security 61; and offshore
223; homicide rates 229; human finance 241; Singaporean perspective
development rankings 228–9; incomes 212; societal security and 73; Solomon
per capita 228; inter-regional relations Islands perspective 248; Turks and
and 225; post-2015 security outlook Caicos Islands 248; Western Balkan
235–6; redefinition of security in 234; perspective 131, 133, 134–5, 140–1;
security and society 226–9; security Western Balkan rankings 136
Index 257
cosmopolitan small states, internal East Timor 36
stratification 33 Eccardt, T. 170
Costa Rica 37 economic security: Baltic perspective 118,
Côte d’Ivoire 36 121; climate change mitigation and 84;
Council of the Baltic Sea States 105 dimensions of 46; resilience and 57;
creative governance: drivers of 243; security strategies 58–61; vulnerability
inordinate impacts 244–6; non- and 47–57
feasibility of transfer 246–7 electronic-gaming industry 249
crime see organized crime embedded autonomy 194–5
crises, financial see Asian financial crisis; energy security: Baltic perspective 108,
global financial crisis 113–14, 117–18, 122; Georgian
crisis management, international see perspective 159; Moldovan perspective
international crisis management 152
crisis response unit, Iceland’s (ICRU) environmental security: Barnett’s
104–5 proposed definition 82; calls for a
Croatia: corruption performance 135; redefinition of national security 81;
democratic development 131; Caribbean perspective 225; climate
demographic trend 133; entry to the EU change 83–5 (see also climate change);
139; EU expectations 130; military concept analysis 81–4; dimensions of
expenditure 131; NATO membership discourse 81; disease 85;
138; state weakness ranking 134 environmental conflict discourse 82–3;
cronyism 61 free rider approach 87; hazard types
Cuba 35, 244 27; hotspots 85; international security
Curaçao 249 threats 85; need for cooperation 84;
cyber-security: Baltic perspective 114, norm entrepreneurship 88–90; options
121–3; Nordic perspective 100, 105, for small state influence 87–90; vs
106; small state perspective 33 other security dimensions 87;
Cyprus 170, 174, 176–9, 244–6 relevance for small states 84–7; sea
level rise 85; Singaporean perspective
de-securitization 29 217; types of threats 84; Western
Denmark: Baltic assistance provision 103; Balkan perspective 138; see also
‘base and ban’ policy 107; climate climate change
change effects observation 87; defence Estonia: financial reserves accumulation
restructuring 106; GHG reductions 90; 121; nuclear power ambitions 122;
NATO membership 96; norm political identity 119; quest for NATO
entrepreneurship 88; post-Cold War and EU membership 103; Russian
change in power calculations 107; speaking minorities 123
security dilemma 108; security European micro-states 167;
environments 102–4 characteristics 173–6; criteria 169;
Detraz, N. 82–3 current listing 170–3; definitional
Deudney, D. 81 issues 168–9; economic data 175;
developmental state, definitional issues economic strategies 178–80;
188 international power 167, 174;
Diego Garcia 209 membership of international
Đinđić, Zoran, assassination of 144n12 organizations 177; military issues and
Dingwerth, K. 234 solutions 176–7; national identity and
Dominica 246 ethnicity 174; offshore financial
domino theory 205 centres 179; parliament sizes 173;
Drezner, D.W. 179 political and economic elites 173;
drugs: Caribbean perspective 223–5, 227, reliance on neighbouring states 175;
229, 232–3; global value 233; Moldovan role of membership of international
perspective 151; value of US sector 233; organizations 177–8; security issues
Western Balkan perspective 133–5 and solutions 177–8; UN membership
du Toit, P. 193 169–70
258 Index
European Union (EU): acidification defence responsibilities 176; military
strategy 89; aid deployment mechanisms expenditure 131; responsibility for
71; Andorra’s ties 170; Baltic defence of Monaco 176
perspective 113–14, 117–19, 121; Friman, H.R. 234
Caribbean perspective 228, 234, 246;
consular assistance efforts 75; costs of gaming industry 249
drugs sector 233; Cyprus joins 170; Gazprom 119
energy security concerns 117–18; and Geertz, C. 203
European micro-states’ security 179; geography, and vulnerability 56, 85
Georgian perspective 155, 158–60; geopolitical environment, impact of post-
‘homeland’ security support 38; impact war transformation 4
of perceived moral liberalism 119; Georgia: alliances with Turkey and
influence of small states in 88; Azerbaijan 159; breakaway republics
intervention competence 29–30; and 33, 155; declaration of independence
irregular migration 244, 246; location of 156; defence upgrade 157; and the EU
key institutions 171; Malta joins 171; 155; geopolitical/strategic comparison
military expenditure 131; Moldovan with Moldova 159–61; geostrategic
perspective 150, 152–5, 160; Nordic location 155; relations between NATO
perspective 98–101, 103, 106–8; and 157; and the United States 155–8,
regional counting procedures 59; 159; war with Russia 157; Baku-Tbilisi-
security actor development 4; sheltering Çeyhan pipeline project 156; EU and
value and sources 38–9; sovereignty NATO’s roles 158; ISAF contribution
modifications 39; Western Balkan 158; Rose Revolution 156; Russia and
perspective 130–1, 133, 135, 137, 155
138–9, 142 Gibraltar 179, 249
Europeanization 4, 113–14, 117, 120, 139 global financial crisis: Baltic perspective
Evans, P. 198 121; Icelandic perspective 105, 107;
export composition, and vulnerability 55–6 micro-states’ vulnerability 175; and
export earnings, volatility in 60 remittance flows 230; and small island
Exxon Valdes oil spill 81 developing states 232; and small state
vulnerability 26–7, 54, 58; Western
failed states 189, 242 Balkan perspective 137
Faroe Islands 96, 108 global warming: impact on small island
Ferrugia, N. 56 states 34, 249; Singaporean perspective
Fiji 249 217; see also climate change
financial crises see Asian financial crisis; globalization: Caribbean perspective 223,
global financial crisis 231; and novel forms of supply 232; and
Finland: bandwaggoning policy 99; regional identity 119; threats inherent in
defence posture 98; and the EU 38; and 62
global security challenges 98–9; norm Gore, Al 83
entrepreneurship 88; and the Petersberg governance: creativity in 242, 244 (see
Tasks 98; security environment 98–9; also creative governance); good 57–9,
societal security expertise 71 61, 140, 178, 241
foreign aid, small country effect 245 governmentality 242
foreign trade dependence, and greenhouse gas emissions 85–7, 89–90
vulnerability 60 Greenland 87, 96, 108
Former Yugoslavian Republic of Grenada 35, 246
Macedonia see Macedonia growth, good governance and 61
fortress mentality 40 Grybauskaitė, Dalia 114
Foucault, M. 242 Gstöhl, S. 84
Fox, A.B. 3, 220 GUAM organization 36
France: Andorran treaty obligations 170; Guantánamo Bay 244
Congress of Vienna recognition 3; Cote Guernsey 179
d’Ivoire intervention 36; micro-state Gulf War 4
Index 259
Guyana 228–9, 230, 233 international agreements, and resilience 60
Gylfason, F. 176 international crisis management, Nordic
states’ involvement 98, 100, 103–4
Habibie, B.J. 215 international organizations, European
Haiti 34, 101, 228–9, 231, 233, 248–9 micro-state membership 177
Hampton, M.P. 247 international security, defining small states
hard security 35–7, 103, 115, 117, 123, in 5–9
133, 149, 153, 160 international security threats,
Harden, S. 168 environmental security 85 (see also
Helveg Petersen, Niels 103 climate change; environmental security)
Hinduism 206 international society, development of 6
homeland security 67 intervention by large states, examples of
Hong Kong 244 35–6
Hudson, D. 195 Inuit communities, environmental threats
human capital 48, 52, 61 to 85
human rights: Baltic perspective 117, Iran 159
119–20; Russian perspective 123; Sri Iraq and Afghanistan 4, 37, 121, 155;
Lankan perspective 210 Baltic perspective 121; Georgian
human security: Caribbean perspective perspective 155–8; Nordic perspective
223, 233; doctrine analysis 28, 67; 101, 103, 106; and small state security 4
environmental security and 81–3; Iraq war 156
UNDP roots 82; Western attitudes 68 Ireland 38, 58–9
human trafficking 98, 105, 133–4, 151 Isle of Man 179, 249
humanitarian intervention 28 isolation: states which have chosen self-
hydropower 86 sufficiency and 46; and vulnerability 57