The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

HARDWARE POLITICS 169Sweden’s security and defence policy is cast increasingly in international ratherthan national terms. Of Sweden’s three official cold war ‘policy pillars’—independence, neutrality in wartime and military non-alignment—only militarynon-alignment remains. Independence has become interdependence, andneutrality is no longer the only, or even the most likely, option should there be awar in Europe. It may therefore come as no surprise that the importance of theNorway–Sweden axis in Nordic defence supply stagnated during the 1990s.Apart from a peak in 2000 owing to major arms exports to Finland, the share ofNorway’s defence sales that went to other Nordic countries fell from around30 per cent in 1999 to below 10 per cent in 2003, the result of reduced deliveriesto Sweden. The same is true for the Nordic region’s share of Sweden’smajor arms exports, which decreased continuously from 30 per cent in 1999 tobelow 10 per cent in 2003. 6This reduction in the intra-Nordic market for major arms took place despitepolitical support for increased Nordic cooperation in the production of equipment.An updated NORDAC (Nordic armaments cooperation) Agreement wasreached in November 2000 and entered into force in February 2001. 7 Itspurpose was to reduce national expenditure on defence purchases andassociated support activities by sharing costs and to support a Nordic defenceindustrial base. A variety of activities were envisaged, starting from jointdevelopment and manufacture of new equipment and the common or coordinatedprocurement of equipment—from a Nordic country or elsewhere—andgoing on to post-delivery cooperation such as sharing operational experiencesor cooperation in maintenance and support of common equipment. 8 Examplesinclude the joint development of the Viking submarine by Denmark, Norwayand Sweden and the coordinated procurement of the NH90 helicopter byFinland, Norway and Sweden.NORDAC: an experiment in Nordic arms cooperationThere may be many commonalities between the Nordic countries, but it doesnot follow that individual military ambitions and requirements are identical.The countries’ different security political choices in 1949 had consequences fordevelopments in their defence procurement and defence industries. Finland wasprohibited from developing or even acquiring certain types of equipment underpost-war treaties and had special security relations with the Soviet Union. Denmarkand Norway chose to rely on the USA for much of their defence equip-6 It has also been noted that the Nordic market for ammunition and similar systems has stagnated.Nammo, ‘Improved performance continuous in Nammo AS’, Press release, 5 May 2004, URL .7 The Agreement between the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Norwayand the Kingdom of Sweden Concerning Support for Industrial Cooperation in the Defence Materiel Area(NORDAC Agreement) was signed on 9 Nov. 2000. For more information see the NORDAC Internet site,URL .8 NORDAC, Historical Overview: Result of Co-operation in NORDAC during 1995–2002/03, version2.1, Dnr Fö2004/1551/MIL (NORDAC: Stockholm, 21 Apr. 2004).