The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

380 THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THEIR REGION AND EUROPEthe EU forces’ mission—taken from the Western European Union’s PetersbergDeclaration of 1992 and enshrined in the 1996 Treaty of Amsterdam, then inthe 1999 Helsinki documents on the ESDP—was acceptable to the Baltic states.Any evolution of the EU into a security political actor is, moreover, onlyreluctantly accepted. The Baltic states’ participation in European security anddefence policy is essentially symbolic, and they will set limits to it if and whenthey perceive that the ESDP is competing with their NATO commitments. ForBaltic security managers, the principal policy goal is to keep the transatlanticlink strong. They are therefore particularly alert to anything that could be perceivedas efforts to push the USA out of Europe.This does not mean that they are wary of European security and defencepolicy per se. In particular, the younger bureaucrats of Estonia, Latvia andLithuania are eager to join the ESDP structures. They are excited about participatingin building up the policy, rather than just joining in. ‘When there is anew structure we want to participate; we do not want to be left out’, was acomment in Lithuania. 71 ‘It is interesting, challenging and allows us to take anactive role; in the ESDP we work to gain credibility in Europe’, echoed aspeaker in Estonia. The emphasis is placed on participation in decision makingand on the chance of acquiring new abilities. One important skill is the art ofcompromise: ‘Only after we became members [of the EU] did we learn howimportant compromise is in this culture in Europe. We were—and from time totime we still are—frustrated when the decision-making process is slow’, admitteda speaker in Tallinn. However, the ESDP decision-making process ‘permitsother countries to participate and is therefore more advanced and more flexiblethan NATO’s’, was a positive view of the EU culture from Latvia. This enthusiasmis impressive, given the workload the EU bureaucracy imposes on suchsmall countries. A foreign diplomat observed: ‘Sometimes we call them and askfor their country’s position on this or that. Nobody knows the answer, becausethis particular issue is dealt with by someone who happens to be in Brussels orsomewhere else. There is not a sufficient number of people to “back up” in caseof absence. So, altogether the workload is enormous for them.’Two elements of the ESDP were highlighted in interviews with Balticrespondents: the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the battle groups. Thedecision to create a defence agency emphasized the need to harmonize nationalefforts in: development of defence capabilities; research into future defence andsecurity needs; coordination of the production and acquisition of armaments;and identifying and implementing policies towards strengthening the EUdefence-industrial base. 72 Within this framework, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania71 In this section, quotations from Baltic observers are, unless otherwise referenced, from Interviews(note 1).72 Schmidt, B., ‘European capabilities: how many divisions?’, ed. N. Gnesotto, EU Security andDefence Policy: The First Five Years (1999–2004) (EU Institute of Security Studies: Paris, 2004), URL, pp. 100–102. See also Lindley-French, J. and Algieri, F., A European DefenceStrategy, Venusberg Report 2004 (Bertelsmann Foundation: Gütersloh, 2004), URL , pp. 50–55. The EDA’s aims are ‘developing defence capabilities in the field of crisismanagement, promoting and enhancing European armaments cooperation, strengthening the European