The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

384 THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THEIR REGION AND EUROPEAt the end of 2004 both Latvia and Lithuania decided to ask to join thePolish–German–Slovakian battle group, led by Poland. They did not consult orcoordinate with each other beforehand, 82 but in the end they were both acceptedby the group. Latvia decided in this context to offer combat support and combatservice support units starting in 2007: specific assets provided could includeone mine countermeasure vessel with 10 days’ readiness; a military police platoonwith 30 days’ readiness; and an explosive ordnance disposal platoon with30 days’ readiness. Lithuania aimed to provide a substantial contribution (possiblya company-size infantry unit) for the Polish-led battle group, expecting itto be available after 2008.As well as the Poland-led battle group, Lithuania has considered participationin the Netherlands-led battle group with Finland and Germany. While Polandseems like a natural political and military partner, Lithuania is already engagedwith the Netherlands in the NATO Response Force. Cooperation with the samepartners in both the battle group and the NATO force has advantages in organizationalterms—with simpler legal agreements and decision-making procedures,for example—and also brings significant military benefits in terms ofinteroperability, training and personnel rotation. In addition, the Netherlands isseen as a good example of a small country with influence in both the EU andNATO. However, Lithuanian–Netherlands discussions on the matter ave beenaffected by the fact that any Lithuanian contribution to the Netherlands-ledbattle group is not likely to take place before 2010. 83The initial geographical focus for the ESDP has been Africa, but Africaseems very far away for some Baltic politicians and even more so for the taxpayers.There is little understanding as to why European countries whichconsider themselves still relatively poor should engage with the colonies of the‘old Europe’. The Baltic states’ own focus is oriented towards the Caucasus andother parts of the CIS; regions with failed or failing states that lie closer to‘their’ Europe. Taxpayers are much more willing to pay their dues to NATOthan to the ESDP and, if the ESDP is to focus on Africa, this will make mattersno easier—not to mention the possible effect of casualties. After many internaldiscussions about whether and how to present the issue to the electorate, theBaltic elites have chosen the theme of the price of ‘solidarity’. ‘If we want to betreated as serious partners and rely on support in times of crises, if we want tohave influence, we need to make a contribution to the ESDP, too.’The ESDP is not a provider of hard security for Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.The refrain in all three capitals is that the new structure, still under development,is ‘not able to contribute to the security of our country’. Despite theBaltic states’ absorption into the postmodern structures of the European Union82 The alleged reason for the lack of coordination was that, because the capabilities offered by theBaltic states would be so similar, they did not expect to be joining the same battle group.83 Permanent Representation of Lithuania to the European Union, Brussels, Personal communicationwith the author, Feb. 2005; and Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence, ‘Lithuania ready to take anactive part in the development of EU Rapid Reaction Force’, Press release, 16 Dec. 2004, URL .