Does a small state need a strategy?

Abstract

In modern conditions the word 'strategy' is increasingly used, by both nations and institutions, to refer to a published declaration of policy intent covering a wide range of security challenges. The importance of a strategy varies according to the scale of a country's problems, including the difficulties of reaching internal consensus. It may be designed to preserve the nation by indirect as well as direct means, for instance by embracing the programme of a potential protecting power or institution. Small states are more likely to have to employ this tactic but may also pay a higher price of adaptation for the cover they gain. A test-case study of the five Nordic states shows that all publish the equivalent of a comprehensive strategy (though not in a single document) and all echo the strategies of major European institutions. In some cases the instrumental logic of the strategy, and the willingness to adjust it to changing problems and opportunities, is clearer than others. The more indirect and instrumental the strategy becomes, however, the greater the risk that public understanding and 'buy-in' may lag behind the reasoning of the élite.