The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

DENMARK AND THE ESDP 47connected and incomprehensible and consequently without credibility. Theinstruments of influence constituted by reputation, negotiating skills and diplomaticmobility cannot but be negatively affected’. 30Even with the defence opt-out still in place, Denmark may be able to pursue aproactive, internationalist foreign policy in the framework of the EU, notably inthe ‘softer’ fields of EU common action. Denmark may possibly enjoy greaterautonomy in the defence field as a side benefit, but its long-term influence oninternational developments will definitely be diminished. No matter how nobleits intentions or how firm its political will, there is little that Denmark canaccomplish as an independent player. Full participation in the ESDP, by contrast,would offer Denmark a unique opportunity to help shape the developmentof the EU as an independent provider of both hard and soft security.V. The Atlantic dimensionMany foreign observers and even some Danes overlook the fact that the Kingdomof Denmark spans the Atlantic Ocean. Denmark still has responsibility forthe security and defence of its—in almost all other respects autonomous—dependencies, the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Greenland, in particular, is nosmall matter: keeping one or two large frigates and three coastal patrols inGreenland waters at all times, 2000 nautical miles from their home bases, is abig task for the Danish Navy. Even so, the size and location of Greenland aresuch that Denmark would not be able to defend it from an enemy attack. Thus,in World War II, when Denmark was unable even to defend itself, the USAtook Greenland under its wing—both because Greenland was strategicallyimportant to it as a staging post on the way to Europe and as an observationpoint and because it was important to deny Germany access to those benefits.Greenland’s strategic importance has changed in nature since then but hardlydiminished. The USA has two installations at Thule Air Base in northernGreenland: (a) a forward early-warning radar system that is about to bemodernized and become part of the USA’s ballistic missile defence system; 31and (b) a satellite communications centre, which permits the longest continuouscommunication with surveillance satellites in polar orbit.The Faroe Islands were occupied and defended by the UK during WorldWar II and have little military significance under present circumstances. Thepopulation is a little less than 50 000 while that of Greenland is a little more. 3230 Olsen and Pilegaard (note 2), p. 41 (author’s translation). See also Rasmussen, N. A., ‘EU’s østudvidelseog det danske forsvarsforbehold [EU’s eastward expansion and the Danish defence opt-out],Danish institute for International Studies (DIIS) Brief, DIIS, Copenhagen, Apr. 2005, URL .31 On US ballistic missile defence plans, including the role of Thule, see Kile, S. N., ‘Ballistic missiledefence’, SIPRI Yearbook 2004: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security (Oxford UniversityPress: Oxford, 2004), pp. 647–58.32 The population of the Faroe Islands was 47 700 in Dec. 2002 and of Greenland was 56 124 in Jan.2000. Turner, B. (ed.), The Statesman’s Yearbook 2005 (Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, 2004),pp. 550, 552.