Foreign policy tools of small states and Iceland’s foreign policy
Summary
This essay discusses foreign policy tools of small states, their relationship with the great powers and identity. A small state is a vulnerable state weak in economy, military, international relations but mostly size, population and GDP. Foreign policy tools of small states are normative power, resilience, peace building, power games and norm advocacy. They must respond to globalization and European integration process. Foreign policy of small states varies and they do stand a change in the international playing field with the great powers by projecting its norms on the international level. A successful example of foreign policy is Iceland, that has been balancing the great powers and managed to empower itself through it.
Introduction
In this essay I will try to answer the question what can small states achieve by their foreign policy, give an example of a successful country’s foreign policy, what are the tools in defining it and achieving their foreign policy goals. In the first part of my essay I will discuss the definition of a small state. In the second part I will discuss foreign policy of small states in the EU and their role in the EU. Also I will discuss their foreign policy tools. In the third part of this essay I will try to provide and support my arguments on the example of Iceland’s successful foreign policy and the role of identity in their foreign policy.
What is a small state?
Before discussing foreign policy tools of any small state or small states in general, it is necessary to provide a definition of a small state.
Fazzle Rabby[1] refers to Barston, naming the defining elements of a small state, and those are population and size, measurable objective elements, relative influence of the state in question (regarding wealth, economy, and military capability) and definition of characteristics of what differentiates it from other large states. Vital considers that population should not be an important factor due to the fact that there are many states that are not great in power and influence but have quite a large population. As an example he gives Bangladesh with a population of more than 160 million people, with the territory of 56,000 square miles and without real power, military or economic and could just as easily be defined as a small state. According to the Commonwealth, small states are sovereign countries with a population 1,5million or fewer. [2]
Some theoretists define small state as one with a population under 23.7million. The Commonwealth also lists the limited resource challenge that small states face in their existence.
Fazzle Rabby, mentions Keohane and his argument that a great power always acts as having an influence on other states in the international system and that it does not matter to it whether it acts alone or not. Whereas a small state acts in a belief that it cannot make a difference or impact on the system, single or in a group.
Definitions of a small state may vary but its power and self-perception is very important. In this essay small states will be considered those small in size and population and their impact will be discussed along with their foreign policy tools and the defining of their foreign policy.
Small states are also defined by their position in the international system which leads to an ideal that a state is as small as great is the power it is interacting with. A state is also defined small if it is weak and needs security from the outside as help. Relying on itself is very important and it can define the status of a state. Reliance in the sense of military, economically, internal stability influences on the perception of a state.
The general attribute given to the small states is their vulnerability. According to Thorhallsson and other authors[3], determining factor for a state are size, population, GDP, military capacity and capabilities of the foreign service. Small states are considered to be vulnerable in political, economical and strategic terms. They have fewer resources to influence the international arena, so they are left with the possibilities of dancing in between on the scale from proactive to reactive.
According to Keohane, as mentioned in Thorhallsson journal, there are three types of states, system-determining, system-influencing and system-affecting. All the types can find their position on the scale from proactive to reactive. The choice is up to the state to what extent it wishes to participate in the foreign policy. The one thing they cannot choose is whether or not to respond to two processes; globalization and European integration process. At this point they should choose their foreign policy.
According to Neuman and Gestöhl they are three dominant international relations theory, realism/neorealism, neorealism versus neoliberal intergovernmentalism and rationalism versus constructivism. They also propose three ways of studying small states, according to their capabilities, their participation in international institutions and their relations with other states. When it comes to taking part in European integration processes there are small states that decided to stay out of EU, such as Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein and San Marino, which points out that a state can respond negatively to the European integration process. Whether it is empowering for the state or not, will be discussed on the examples further on.
Tools of small states in creating its foreign policy
As several journals suggest, it appears that there are many factors which a small state can use as tools in creating its foreign policy. Firstly, an important factor is resilience. A small state must overcome its size and vulnerability. It must provide resilience in economic, military, inside matters and politics. Secondly, creating and defining and also presenting its identity are very powerful tools. Thirdly, the most important factor is its normative power, which is a concept very rich in content and will be discussed further on. The concept of ”soft power”, a term coined by Joseph Nye, Jr., is also very necessary for discussing the FP of small states. International organizations and transnational interest groups have profiled themselves as relevant to small states’ goal achieving tools. It is supported with the fact that there has been an increase in the number of NGOs. Small states are also putting an emphasis on peace building as its strategy in military and pragmatic solutions to problems of cooperation, which is positioning them as stronger players on the international field.
One of the most interesting tools for me has been the concept of normative power of a small state. Luša and Mijić discuss the normative power of small states as a key factor of influence in international relations. They refer to Knudsen and six variables for the preserving of its autonomy. Those variables are strategic positioning, geographic location, degree of tensions between the great states, historical relations between the small state and its closest great state, the existence of multilateral framework for security cooperation. Luša and Mijić claim that international system is driven by interests and force and power games, therefore small states accept and/or create certain moral values and ideals raising them on the norm level that further on develop into a normative power. It is a way for their reputation becoming stronger and the sources which are available to them can influence and create a good image of their diplomatic activities, leadership and administrative skills. The goal of the aforementioned is to achieve national interests with the assistance of power, sometimes on the cost of other states. Radovan Vukadinović in “International policy and relations”, claims a state must optimize its national interests with other states and compromise. Luša and Mijić name three foreign relation policies and strategies of a small state according to Vital, passive strategy of giving up, active change of environment in its own gain and defensive with the purpose of preserving the status quo. Since a small state should and must reduce the possible negative outcomes of its smallness, the two authors emphasize the strategies according to Vogel, avoidance of growing interdependence, avoiding greater dependence of the outside influence through selective foreign policy that saves resources and increases prestige and avoiding concepts such as neutrality.
Foreign policy should be an adaptive form of behavior, which according to Rosenau there are four, submissive, non-compromising, promotive and preservative. When it comes to a small state’s membership in the European Union, it is according to all the previously mentioned authors a place for normative power of the state to use the rotating presidency of the EU and the influencing tactics of its foreign policy.
Small states it appears have the ability to project its norms on the level of international community and use the institutions for the standardization of its norms. In their analysis Luša and Mijić refer to Björkdahlu, who claims that normative power lies on the power of ideas and norms connected with the concept of civilian soft power as well as the acknowledged power of idea. Therefore they should always lean on normative power, be consistent in it and channel it on reaching political goals rather than on long term and overambitious goals. Björkdahlu claims that by promoting norms they are setting an international standard and affect the world order. Luša and Mijić support the hypothesis that in creating and building norms states must choose a niche in which they will define their goals, support norms through diplomacy, coalition building and abilities, finding an institutionalized framework for support and developing the norms, or conveniently called, norm advocacy.
Norm advocacy should be a form of non imposed, clearly defined, persuasive argumentation, used for raising moral consciousness about what is the right thing to do. In a way small states should create a sort of a product of norms and output it on an international level as a norm placement. One of the most important things to say about norm advocacy is that small states must provide consistency in the norm implementation.
The question is what can a small state do to become more influential in playing the field? Scheldrup’s journal argues that a high degree of internal stability and external ambiguity is linked to a small state with a high level of foreign policy initiative. For the understanding of a state’s behavior its size is relevant. The opinion that small states do not stand a chance in decision making of any kind because larger states get to do the thinking and acting for all is prevalent.
A small state should be able to pursue higher goals and have a more ambitious foreign policy when there is a stable domestic environment and a lack of external certainty. Smallness in size should not be a drawback rather a cause for joining to the ones who are alike. The fact that there are many more small states in number than the large ones, supports the previous.
In their intentions for transferring the norms on the EU level which can be put on the daily issues list can be reaffirmed as a kind of normative power, for small states the key thing is to enter into alliances.[4] Foreign policy of small states varies therefore it is not easy to determine a pattern in the behavior of small states. What they need to be successful is skillful diplomacy and the use of their geostrategic position. For example, Sweden and Finland remained neutral in the Second World War, while Norway and Denmark joined NATO. Denmark joined the EU and Norway and Iceland did not.
The field where small states would more possibly be able to achieve their foreign policy aims is international organizations, because it is more likely that they would treat all states equally and they would provide the necessary security and equal chances in playing the field. Through institutions of their own state, small states could define their foreign policies.
Luxembourg uses its smallness as an advantage. One of many to support its foreign policy aims. According to Scheldrup on one hand interdependence for a small state is way down to turn it into a failed state, but on the other hand it can upgrade it in international relations. If a small state has a resilient econonomy and politics it can aim high. A small state must be resilient in making policies to overcome its vulnerability due to size. Such example the author sees in Qatar. It is a resilient state because it builds its reputation in many different fields and crises. A state should pursue areas of mutual interest and be engaged with a variety of large states which is a form of soft power. That should help it enlarge its importance and maintain its international position. Identity is considered a powerful tool, having in mind the constructivist perspective. The smallness of a state can be incorporated in the identity narrative. Social constructivism has brought the attention to the construction of identities and interests in small states as a basis for institutionalized foreign policy in regard to different arenas of the world politics including discursive politics such as norm entrepreneurship in international relations.[5] As an example of a good identity narrative Scheldrup gives an example of Finland. Innovation and oil and the fact that it reinvests the money earned from oil into manufacturing and innovations make Finland successful. It does not waste the money and has the stability within the state. Also the new government continues the implementation of the policies created by the previous government which provides stability and continuity.
The removal of barriers to international trade and investment has given the chance to small states to propone their soft power. It helped the creating of universalist IGOs where small states have a chance for an equal treatment. Scheldrup argues the liberal view that state power can vary across policy areas and that beside economical factors culture has become a more influential foreign policy instrument. A small state could pursue an active foreign policy for it can bring her power and security. However it must balance between on one hand isolation, weakness, threat and on the other side power and economic prestige very well because it can provide her with a large list of possible positive results.
As previously mentioned, internal stability is important for a state to pursue its active foreign policy. Internal stability subsumes the domestic factors, state-society relationship, which shapes the national identity and preferences of a nation, agility and pragmaticity of its foreign policy is what is made from a stable domestic environment. External perception of a state is important to connect with the internal stability factors. External ambiguity is a powerful tool where a country is being intentionally ambiguous about its foreign policy or certain aspects of it. Although it is considered risky and there is a change for misinterpretation, if it ends well, can give empowering results for the state. To go for a foreign policy initiative state should according to Scheldrup have a greater degree of trade diversification, have a stable domestic political condition, decision makers should perceive their state’s external environment as not fixed.
Successful foreign policy of Iceland
Iceland, a former colony of Denmark, was one of the poorest countries in the Western Europe, at the end of World War II. It is a small state in regards of population, size, military capacity and its foreign service capabilities. Iceland can be studied on three theories, according to Thorhallsson, definition of capabilities, participation in international institutions and relation between states. Iceland’s first struggle was for independence from Denmark. Due to German occupation Denmark could no longer attend Iceland’s foreign affairs which made Iceland take full charge of their affairs and through legal arguments and peaceful campaign gained independence and became a republic in 1944.
The people of Iceland assigned the victory to national unity based on their culture, uniqueness and national heroes. It was a boost for them to propone the image of securing self-determination on their own, preparing the ground for putting an emphasis on bilateralism. Iceland has become the founding member of the Nordic Council in 1952 with Norway, Denmark, Sweden and later on Finland. Even though not much has been accomplished by the Council its success lied on shared culture, objectives and values. The strength of Icelandic foreign policy was in bilateralism, where every problem was solved on such basis.
During the period of Cod Wars, where Iceland was eager to extend its fishing zone from 4 miles to 50 miles to finally 200 miles, which put a strain on its relationship with Britain. In the end Iceland won with the ICJ giving it a preferential share in the distribution of fishing resources due to Iceland’s dependence on coastal fisheries and later on with the British approval because of the US military interests in Iceland.
Also during the Cod Wars Iceland even broke off diplomatic relations with Britain and used its geographically important position to get the NATO members put pressure on Britain. When Britain gave in, Iceland’s myth of unilateral success was reinforced as well as the sense of pride and national identity.
US and Iceland signed a defence agreement, the Keflavík Agreement in 1946, which put Iceland in a special position among the NATO members. Iceland also started the Marshall Aid Programme which helped the government out of recessions. Later on Iceland was one of the few Western European countries that participated in the supporting the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 in the coalition of the willing. The biggest success of their foreign policy is balancing of powers between two strong blocs, EU (negotiations about entering a joined market with the EU) and the USA (military protection and a USA military base on Iceland’s territory). Later on it forbade the import of nuclear weapon on its territory and in 1970 it joined EFTA proving it wants to participate under its own terms.
Iceland had been fighting against joining the EU because it favoured a bilateral relationship with states in Western Europe and bilateral trade agreements, until 2009. In 2013 the president of the government of Iceland had informed the EU Council for integration that Iceland is withdrawing its candidature for a member state.
Iceland had a stable political system supported by coalition government. Most of their prime ministers were from the Conservative party (Ólafur Thors was the prime minister for four times), followed by the Liberal progressive party and Social democratic party, which was the only party that did not oppose to the EU joining.
Its ecological and feminist movement is of great importance (Vigdís Finnbogadóttir was the first woman president elected democratically).
Financial and economic crisis, 2008-09 created political instability, but Iceland has very successfully recovered its economy due to brave and unconventional approach to foreign banks on its country’s territory.
Conclusion
There are many foreign policy tools small states can use to create their foreign policy, from using its normative power, power of international organizations, external ambiguity factors, military strategies, pragmatic solutions to problem cooperation, resilience, culture, using its geostrategic power and skillful diplomacy, to using social constructivism placing the role of international relations on their identity and uniqueness. There is no universal pattern in creating foreign policy of small states. Each is unique depending on what the state regards as their advantages and disadvantages. That could either be considered as strength or weakness. However I consider it being their strength because it makes them less predictable by the great powers.
Iceland provides a good example of foreign policy because of its political system’s stability, successful balance of powers, EU and USA, and standing up for its rights to the former great power Britain. It successfully uses social institutions’ perspective and soft power to maintain stability and coordinate, while staying outside of the EU was empowering for the state’s identity. Every small state needs to find its own path in defining its foreign policy, there is no universal pattern. In creating such policy they need to be consistent, brave, confident and recognize their opportunity.
Literature and sources
Christine Ingebritsen: „Scandinavia in world politics“, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. 2006
Đana Luša, Petra Mijić: “Vanjska politika malih država – normativna moć kao faktor utjecaja u međunarodnim odnosima” , University of Zagreb, Faculty of Political Sciences, 2015
Fazzle Rabby: “Small state’s foreign policy maneuvering”
(http://www.academia.edu/4723580/Small_States_foreign_policy_maneuvering, 18.5.2016.)
Macklin Scheldrup: “Lilliputian Choice, explaining small state foreign policy variation”, International Affairs Department Honors Thesis, University of Colorado-Boulder, 2014
Kristian Stokke: “Peace-building as small state foreign policy”, International studies, 49, 3&4, 2012
Baldur Thorhallssen: “What features determine small states’ activities in the international arena?“, Stjórnmál og Stjórnsýsla, Veftĺmarit, 2005
Radovan Vukadinović: “Međunarodni politički odnosi”, Barbat, Zagreb, 1998
http://thecommonwealth.org/our-work/small-states (16.5.2016.)
[1] Fazzle Rabby: “Small states in international relations: rearranging the puzzle of defining the small state” http://www.academia.edu/3809483/Small_states_in_international_relations_rearranging_the_puzzle_of_defining_the_Small_State_–Md._Fazle_Rabby(16.5.2016)
[2] http://thecommonwealth.org/our-work/small-states (16.5.2016.)
[3] Baldur Thorhallson:“What features determine small states’ activities in the international arena?“, Stjórnmál og Stjórnsýsla, Veftĺmarit, 2005:110
[4] Đana Luša, Petra Mijić: „Vanjska politika malih država – normativna moć kao faktor utjecaja u međunarodnim odnosima“, Političke perspektive, članci i studije (2015:54)
[5] Ingebritsen, C.: „Scandinavia in world politics“.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. 2006.