So what will be the main challenges for Danish foreign policy in the year(s) to come?
I would expect that no single challenge will dominate our “to do list”. On the contrary, several interdependent and multi-dimensional issues will influence our foreign policy not only in 2005, but also in the coming years. I have already indicated some of them in my article.
In Europe the result of the referenda on the Constitutional Treaty will undoubtedly set the stage for all other EU-tasks. It is not an exaggeration to say that the future framework for the European co-operation lies in the hands of the European People.
But in parallel several other crucial European projects must continue. First of all, the negotiations on the financial perspectives for 2007-2013. What are the strategic priorities of the EU? And how do we ensure that the EU’s resources are focused on areas where the EU has a real added value? The European partnership for Growth and Jobs will also need continued attention. Denmark is actively engaged in these discussions.
The enlargement process will also continue. It is crucial for the future credibility and inner strength of the EU that its common values and high standards are met by future member states. It will be a challenge also to develop close co-operation with neighbouring countries such as Ukraine and Georgia. Their democratic “revolu- tions” deserve an intensive and equal partnership. EU’s global role and responsebili- ty will continue to grow.
In 2005 I expect that efforts to strengthen and develop the core of stability and partnership constituted by Europe and the US will continue on both sides of the Atlantic.
Difficult times in the transatlantic co-operation have made it clear that we need to stand together in order to deal with the pressing global challenges.
It is Denmark’s long membership of the EU and our close relations to the US that inspired us to formulate the catalogue of 39 concrete proposals for strengthen- ing EU-US co-operation. We will hopefully see some of them agreed in 2005. Den- mark’s close ties might come to a test in the UN Security Council. Agreement and disagreement will have to be tackled. In general, the US-EU relationship seems to be moving forward on new areas (i.e. Ukraine, Georgia, Russia, Peace Process in the Middle East and Iran) while still working on well-known contentious issues (i.e. the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto Protocol).
Challenges in the wider Middle East region will certainly continue to be at the centre of international policy and continue to require a strong and concerted Europe as well as a close transatlantic partnership. Be it in securing the reconstruction and democratisation of Iraq, the nuclear question in Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Many of the pressing challenges will continue to be of a cross-border nature that requires both acute action and long-term investments of global dimensions. The Tsunami-catastrophe on the verge of 2005 reminded us all of this global interconnectedness and fragility. It will be crucial to tackle challenges like terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failed states, civil wars and ethnic strives – especially in Africa – climate change, and lack of natural resources, migration and poverty. The UN 2005 Summit in September 2005 will ensure international spotlight on all these issues.
In 2005 and 2006 the Danish membership of the UN Security Council will give us additional leverage in tackling many of these challenges. As a small country we need to be a credible partner in all fora of international policy in order to succeed in our main policy objectives. I hope that the Danish defence opt-out will not put us in the paradoxical situation where we in the UN Security Council request the EU to fulfil a crisis management task for the UN and the following day cannot participate in the actual EU implementation of this same task.
In the Security Council and beyond we must manoeuvre on a dramatically changing global political scene. China’s economic growth and increasing military power is accompanied by a growing engagement on the political scene, which seems to be aimed at seeking a calm political and not least economic environment. The growing economic interdependence of China/Europe and China/USA as well as China’s requirement for energy and raw materials will undoubtedly change the bilateral relationships and the global scene. Denmark must seize the new opportunities that this change will bring.
Let me now conclude with two specific challenges for the Danish Foreign Service in 2005.
“The Nordic Region in a New Era: Knowledge, Dynamism and Co-operation” – this title will in 2005 be directional for Denmark’s Presidency of the Nordic Council of Ministers and our responsibility for the Nordic intergovernmental co-operation.
Our point of departure is good – all Nordic welfare states are highly developed knowledge societies, but we need to focus our co-operation on areas where co- operation offers clear Nordic synergies. The Foreign Service will work closely together with the many involved line-ministries.
Last year, I mentioned that the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as part of our modernisation process and as a means to adapt our policies effectively to a rapidly changing international system, would introduce joint target and performance management. In 2004 several pilot projects were implemented successfully and in 2005 all Missions abroad and all Departments in Copenhagen will work out crosscutting performance management agreements that cover the Ministry’s entire field of activities. As a global online knowledge organisation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is continuously working on reaching the strategic goals of the organisation.
The system will help to ensure that emphasis is placed on strategic goals and the allocation and use of resources reflect a clear prioritisation of tasks performed. I have great expectations that this instrument will enable us to achieve even better and more efficient foreign policy results.
Transforming Wider Europe:
Ten Lessons from Transatlantic- Nordic-Baltic Cooperation
Daniel Hamilton1
The dual enlargement of the European Union and NATO in 2004 projected stability far across the European continent. This process will continue with the pending accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, and with a real perspective of EU membership now given to Turkey. Moreover, the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine have opened new opportunities to advance freedom and democracy across an even wider swath of the European continent.
Unfortunately, this dynamic region faces a West that is distracted, divided, complacent, or uncertain as to why it should engage as an active partner for change.
Many Western leaders have expressed rhetorical support for a Wider Europe that is more democratic, more secure, and more of a partner for the West. But the concept remains relatively undefined, its mechanisms undeveloped, and support for it uncertain. Many have yet to decide whether Western engagement should be foremost about mollifying non-members or advancing a truly transformative approach to the region that would align – and eventually integrate – these nations into the European and Euro-Atlantic community.
Why should the West advance a transformative agenda with Wider Europe? The answer begins by appreciating the transformative power of the transatlantic partnership itself. For half a century the European-American partnership protected the western half of the continent from threats from its eastern half, while transforming relations among western nations themselves and working to overcome the overall divisions of the continent. The West then joined in solidarity with those on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain who shattered walls with their stubborn insistence that they would “return to Europe.” Following the Cold War the transatlantic partnership seized the dynamic offered by a continent without walls
1 Daniel Hamilton is the Executive Director of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Centre for Transatlantic Relations, United States. E-mail: [email protected].
and began to work towards a Europe whole, free and at peace with itself. It recognised the challenging opportunity of exporting stability so as not to risk importing instability. It acted first by anchoring the Visegrad countries into the Euro-Atlantic community. After hesitation and great human tragedy in the Balkans, it extended that vision to those in South Eastern Europe who were prepared to build democracy, market economies and peaceful relations with their neighbours. It then broadened that vision to include other new democracies from the Baltic to the Black Sea. The result has been the successive advance of democracy, security, human rights and free markets throughout most of the Euro-Atlantic region.
Today the challenge is to extend that vision to include the countries of Wider Europe, extending from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean to Eurasia.
Working to achieve this vision is an opportunity for Europeans and Americans, after some bitter spats, to regenerate a sense of common cause. Successful reforms in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia would reverberate throughout the societies of the former Soviet space, offering compelling evidence that freedom, democracy, respect of human rights and the rule of law is not some quixotic dream.
Success in this region would bring us one step closer to a Europe that is truly whole, free, and at peace with itself. It would give the West new partners who could add their strengths to ours. It would enhance Western security, open new markets and enable Europe to diversify its energy sources. By anchoring democracy and respect for human rights in regions bordering the Middle East, it would also facilitate efforts by the United States and Europe to advance their second major transformative project – modernization of the Broader Middle East itself.2