NORDIC CO-OPERATION IN JAPAN: TOWARDS FOREIGN POLICY COLLABORATION?

• Author: Ingvarsdottir, Kristin

1. Introduction: Nordic co-operation and (harmonised?) foreign policy

   In 2010, Swedish historian Gunnar Wetterberg caused quite a stir when he published a proposal for a United Nordic Federation during the annual Nordic Council Session, where Nordic parliamentarians discuss current issues with the prime ministers and other ministers of the Nordic countries. His bold proposal caught the attention of Nordic politicians and the media alike, to the extent that the following year, the Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministers published an expanded version of Wetterberg's vision in their yearbook reflecting on 2010. The back cover introduces the work with the following proclamation: "The Nordic region 2030: The five Nordic countries have formed a federal political entity--The United Nordic Federation" (Wetterberg 2010). Detailing his vision, Wetterberg claimed: "The first arena in which an integrated Region would make a major impact would be foreign and security policy" (2010: 36). The Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministers (hereafter NC and NCM) did not in any way commit to the federation proposal, nor to specific parts of it, but it is interesting that they chose to devote their yearbook to Wetterberg's nearly 80-page-long proposal. Two important reports from the same period, the so-called "Stoltenberg Report" (Stoltenberg 2009) and Nordic communities: a vision for the future (Strang 2012), did not go as far as Wetterberg's federation idea but share his emphasis on strengthening Nordic collaboration within the field of foreign and security policy (1)

   Almost a decade later, in August 2019, the Nordic prime ministers stated their vision for the region, declaring that "the Nordic Region will be the most sustainable and integrated region in the world by 2030" ("The Nordic region..." n.d.). The action plan for 2021-2024 that was subsequently published by the NCM in 2020 focuses on cultivating a green, competitive and socially sustainable Nordic region (Nordic Council of Ministers 2020). The action plan does mention that the Nordic region should contribute to the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030, but in general the plan seems more focused on internal issues and processes than on Nordic interaction with the rest of the world. In contrast to Wetterberg's 2030 vision, then, the currently adopted plan does not mention foreign policy or put much focus on international activities, at least not in the first four-year plan.

   However, the focus on intra-regional integration does not mean that the Nordic countries have no cooperative agenda beyond their own borders; on the contrary, collaboration has been taking place in various ways both within and outside the official bodies for Nordic co-operation. (2) Looking specifically at the NCM and NC, they emphasise that while foreign and security policy does not fall under the former's remit, it is "an important part of the Nordic Council's activities" ("Nordic Council calls for..." 2021). The NCM has, however, been involved in 'softer issues', as seen in the two strategies for international branding of the Nordic region which it has published since 2015, with the aim to "showcase the Nordic region globally, and thereby increase the competitiveness and international influence of the Nordic countries" (Nordic Council of Ministers 2019: 9). In late 2017, the NC published its first international strategy, aimed at the period from 2018-2022. In the strategy paper, there is much emphasis on pan-Nordic synergies: "The fact that the Nordic countries have different attitudes to membership of various international alliances does not preclude far closer co-operation on international relations, defence, economics, security, culture, education, research, embassies, freedom of movement, integration, development aid and health" (Nordic Council 2017: 1).

   Among the population of the Nordic region, there is also broad support for closer Nordic collaboration, both within the region and in the international arena. As part of a study commissioned by the NCM and NC in 2017, a survey found that over 90% of interviewed participants found Nordic collaboration 'important', and of those, 60% found collaboration 'very important'. In addition, 68% believed that "co-operation should be intensified further" ("Stronger together..." 2017). When the participants were asked to consider all the different areas where the Nordics could collaborate and choose the most important ones (multiple answers allowed), the most frequent answer was 'defence and security' (Andreasson and Stende 2017: 19). When asked about the main advantages of Nordic collaboration (multiple choice, max three answers), the second most frequent answer was that it gives the Nordic region a stronger voice in the world (Andreasson and Stende 2017: 19). The survey clearly demonstrates that the Nordic population sees great potential in Nordic collaboration when it comes to foreign policy and the global stage.

   Growing interest in the Nordics and Nordic collaboration both within and outside the region has led some scholars and commentators to talk about a 'Nordic renaissance' (Haugevik and Sending 2020: 111) or the Nordics potentially being "on the verge of a Nordic golden age" (Strang 2013: 8, emphasis in original). Scholars have paid increasing attention to various Nordic developments, but of special interest for this paper are studies that deal specifically with the Nordic states' foreign policies (see for example Haugevik and Sending 2020, Marcussen 2018, Sverdrup 2016). In practice, however, scholars mostly examine the foreign policy of each Nordic state--comparing and contrasting them and ultimately concluding that they have much in common--rather than considering them as (potentially) single actors. (3) Regarding the Nordics and foreign policy in general, scholars Haugevik and Sending make the following observation:

   Given the five Nordic states' shared assessments of the international environment, their similar values, overlapping interests, good internal relations, and oft-repeated aspiration to collaborate more, both interest- and identity-driven theories of action would anticipate intensified cooperation (2020: 111). Based on these commonalities, Haugevik and Sending pose the central question of why there is not "more organized Nordic foreign policy collaboration, for example in the form of a joint 'grand strategy' on core foreign policy" (ibid: 110) and argue that "foreign policy is a domain where shared societal and political traits do not make Nordic joint positions and action more likely" (ibid.: 111). This paper takes up Haugevik and Sending's inquiry, treating it like a research question and approaching it from a different perspective. That is, the paper does not analyse the individual foreign policy of each Nordic state but instead looks at cases where the Nordic countries have indeed presented a united Nordic front to the world and attempts to draw some conclusions from these examples. The paper will specifically focus on joint Nordic initiatives in Japan that relate to different areas of foreign policy, ranging from economic and cultural diplomacy to international security. The cases presented here are the following:

   * The joint Nordic participation at the World Expo in Japan in 1970

   * The Nordic-Japan (5+1) prime ministers' meetings in Bergen, Norway in 1997 and Reykjavik, Iceland in 1999

   * The Nordic Innovation House in Tokyo, established in 2020

   While these joint Nordic activities were all aimed at Japan, they varied in scope and nature and took place against different historical backgrounds in terms of international trends in the Nordic region and Japan, as well as the strength and extent of Nordic collaboration. (4) Because the initiatives have been subject to few academic studies, examining them means relying considerably on primary sources. (5) The main focus is on sources of Nordic origin, but fortunately, Japanese viewpoints often shine through. The cases have been selected to address and answer the following subset of research questions:

   * What structural form has Nordic co-operation taken in Japan?

   * To what extent can there be talk of foreign policy collaboration?

   * What can we learn from these examples?

   In a narrow sense, the questions are interesting for Nordic-Japanese relations. In a broader sense, they are of interest in the context of collaborative Nordic policymaking with an eye towards larger states and in relation to the theoretical discussion about foreign policy trends among intergovernmental and non-state entities.

2. Definition of key concepts

   Before looking at the three cases, a few key concepts should be discussed and clarified. Firstly, the term 'Nordic states' or 'Nordics' generally refers to Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, plus the autonomous regions of the Faroe Islands and Greenland (Denmark) and Aland (Sweden). This paper focuses on the first group, i.e. the five sovereign Nordic states. The Nordics have two main forums for official Nordic co-operation: the Nordic Council (NC), formed in 1952, and the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM), established in 1971. The former is the "official body for formal inter-parliamentary co-operation" and the latter is the "official body for inter-governmental co-operation" (as defined on norden.org/en). The last concept that is important to discuss is foreign policy. Traditionally, foreign policy has been understood to refer to the way in which states interact with other states. The world has changed, however, and it has become mainstream for scholars to acknowledge that international actors such as the European Union can form foreign policies (see for example Smith 1999, The Making of European Foreign Policy: The Case of Eastern Europe and Nuttall 2000, European Foreign Policy). The European Union does, indeed, formulate and implement its own foreign policy, regardless of what scholars may think (European foreign and security policy...