Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 26 January 2014, At: 05:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Scandinavian Journal of HistoryPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shis20
Scandinavian grass roots: From peace movement toNordic councilKnud Larsen aa Lecturer at Copenhagen University , Ewaldsvej 1, Rungsted Kysl, DK‐2960, DenmarkPublished online: 23 Jun 2008.
To cite this article: Knud Larsen (1984) Scandinavian grass roots: From peace movement to Nordic council, ScandinavianJournal of History, 9:2-3, 183-200
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03468758408579041
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
183
Scandinavian Grass Roots:From Peace Movement to Nordic Council
Knud Larsen
1. Introduction
When the Nordic Council held its first meeting on 13 February 1953, the Council's"father of the house", the Swedish Conservative politician Nils Herlitz, gave thefollowing assessment of the current situation:
I would not describe the significance of today's events as lying on the creationof something new. That has not happened yet. But we are today faced with anew perspective, a new set of problems, a new task.1
It is debatable (and will indeed be debated in the future) whether it ever provedpossible to create that new state of affairs which Herlitz had in mind, namely abreakthrough for an institution which could decisively advance the cause of Nordiccooperation. Hans Hedtoft, the Danish Social Democratic politician and the firstpresident of the Nordic Council, said on the same occasion that "Nordic politicianshave never before been confronted with a greater or more exalted problem tosolve".2 But have they ever attempted to deal with it?
At present, it is easier to discuss such issues on a political level than on the level ofhistorical analysis. The Nordic Council has existed for over thirty years. It haswithout interruption played its role as an inter-parliamentary body with the task ofadvising and making recommendations to the Nordic governments, meeting reg-ularly and sustained by an eves growing bureaucracy. The Council and its variousorgans have demonstrated a capacity to produce ofFshots which has led throughoutthe Nordic region to the establishment of cooperative bodies which are working onthe solution of immediate or more long-term Nordic problems. Much of thiscooperation is carried out under the direction of the Nordic Council.
Knud Larsen, born 1936, dr. phil., is a former lecturer at Copenhagen University and external rector of Roskilde University Centre. He is
currently editor of the Berlingslce Tidende. His doctoral thesis was entitled Forsvar og Folkeforbund (Danish Defence Policy and the
League of Nations 1918-22).
Address: Ewaldsvej 1, DK-2960 Rungsted Kysl, Denmark.
1 Nordisk Råd, vol. 1, 1953 session, col. 85-86.2 Ibid., col. 101.
Scani.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
184 Krad Lañen
It will only be possible to survey this whole network of formal cooperative bodiesand of an informal, though often very active will to cooperate as a historicalphenomenon when the Nordic Council either, to adopt Herlitz's words, is reshapedto face new perspectives, new sets of problems and new tasks or entirely ceases toexist.
The least likely development is that the Nordic Council should cease to exist. TheCouncil rests on a great number of practical relationships between the Nordiccountries, relationships which arise above all from the existence of a linguistic andcultural community. Thinking along Nordic lines has become a normal element inthe politics and administration of the Nordic countries. As a result, the prevailingtrend is not towards the removal of Nordic institutions, unless, that is, they arereplaced by new ones and then generally on a "higher" Nordic level. This state ofaffairs can be described as the element of inertia within Nordic cooperation.
This inertia would be a stabilizing factor, if or when the need for the NordicCouncil is questioned. The existence of the Nordic Council has become a part of thestatus quo in the Nordic region. One reason for this is connected with the ¡mage of theNordic countries in the international community as a whole: it is regarded asdesirable that the Nordic democracies should be seen to be cooperating with eachother.
There has been a tendency in the works which have been produced on the NordicCouncil to regard its foundation as a decisive advance in the history of Nordiccooperation. Frantz Wendt, the first Danish secretary-general of the Council, haswritten apropos of Nordic cooperation in the years after 1945 that "the mostsignificant innovation of the post-war period was the establishment of the NordicCouncil".3
This assessment corresponds with the view put forward by Stanley V. Anderssonin his pioneering analysis of the history and place in organisational theory of theNordic Council. He emphasized to be sure that the Council had not become a"supranational body" (which is presumably what Herlitz had dreamed of), but hedescribed it as an "intergovernmental substitute for the authoritative regionaldecision-making bodies that might have been".4 However, he does not question inhis account the essential assumption that the establishment of the Council was adecisive and original step in the history of Nordic cooperation.
However, it is possible to ask whether the events of the years 1950—52, which canbe characterized as the period in which the Council was established, have not beenregarded to an excessive degree as an original new departure in the field of Nordiccooperation. It is the aim of this article to give at least a more balanced answer tothis question by drawing attention to the historical development of Nordic coopera-tion over a long period of time. The purpose of this survey of the historicalantecedents of the Nordic Council is twofold. First, it is interesting in itself toattempt to identify the nature of the Nordic Council when it was founded. Secondly,
3 Nordic Democracy, published by Del danske Selskab (København, 1981), p. 657.4 Stanley V. Anderson, The Nordic Council. A Study of Scandinavian Regionalism (Stockholm, 1967), p. 25.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 185
it is possible that the inertia which was mentioned earlier may also be part of theexplanation why the Nordic Council has found it so difficult to live up to the hopethat something entirely new could be created. If the Council is regarded as a stage ina longer process of development, it may be easier to find an explanation why somany of the hopes that have been attached to its activities have been disappointed.
2. Previous Evaluations research
In his official history of the Nordic Council, Frantz Wendt touches upon some of theearlier attempts to meet the need for organized cooperation between the Nordiccountries. On the question of inter-parliamentary cooperation, he writes that "Asearly as 1907, the members of parliament in the Nordic countries established theirown private organization, the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union". At anotherpoint in the book, he observes that
Links had also been established between Nordic parliamentarians within theframework of the semi-private Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union, a bodythat was set up in 1907 within the worldwide Inter-Parliamentary Union.The Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union served above all as a form for non-binding exchanges of view on current social problems and occasionallyinspired legislative initiatives, but it was particularly important in estab-lishing contacts between Nordic parliamentarians. However, it possessed noconstitutional powers.5
The impression that Wendt creates through his description of Nordic inter-par-liamentary cooperation is of a "private" or "semi-private" body which lacked realpowers but which was of importance at least on the personal or social level.
Stanley V. Anderson writes that there are many "institutional similarities be-tween the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Nordic Council, and mentions suchexamples as 1) the principle of national equality, 2) the use of language and 3) theselection of members, officers and staff. However, he places more emphasis on thedifferences between the two bodies, and observes that, in contrast to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Nordic Council 1) is marked by greater proceduralformality 2) holds longer annual sessions 3) considers a much wider range ofsubjects 4) gives greater attention to publicity and public relations 5) allows officialsto participate in its discussions and 6) has created a permanent bureaucracy andhas undertaken considerable interim activity.6
3. The Origins
In 1890 Fredrik Bajer, a Liberal member of the Danish parliament, published abooklet entitled Interparlamentariske Konferencer (Interparliamentary conferences). It
5 Frantz Wendt, Nordisk Råd 1952-1978 (Stockholm, 1979), p. 17.6 Ibid., p. 16.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
186 Kmid Ursen
was dedicated to the parliamentarians of the Nordic kingdoms. In this booklet,Bajer posed the questions: "Would not the members of all three Nordic parliamentsbe in a position to give each other much good advice concerning the furtherance ofcommon measures advantageous to the whole Nordic region?" After enumeratingthe areas in which solutions that might be described as Nordic had already beenachieved (for example, the currency union which was introduced between 1872 and1875), he went on to propose the holding of meetings between "representatives ofthe Nordic peoples". Such meetings
might suitably be held successively in each of the three Nordic capitals, forexample in the month of September, that is to say just before the threelegislative assemblies begin their regular autumn sessions. At any rate, is thisidea not worth trying? The experiment need not be continued, if such meet-ings disappointed the expectations attached to them.7
Fredrik Bajer had a somewhat varied background. Since his election to the Folketing(the lower chamber of the Danish parliament) in 1872, he had acquired a certaincelebrity as a pioneer. He had participated actively in the creation of a Nordiccurrency union, which he regarded as a piece of active Scandinavianism. However,he had been elected to parliament as an opponent of the existing government and hedid not play a prominent political role during the many years in which the growingLiberal opposition sought to combat the Conservative government. Perhaps it wasfor this reason that he threw himself into other fields of activity. He supportedfeminism at a time when the women's movement was still in its infancy. He began towork for practical Scandinavianism at a time when the Scandinavianist movementof the preceding decades was rapidly collapsing. He was above all a champion ofpeace, an active and prominent member of the incipient international peace move-ment in which the Inter-Parlamentary Union also had a place.8
In all these different movements, Bajer was an untiring organizer. He seems tohave thought incessantly in organizational terms. Together with his wife, MathildeBajer, he set up the DanskKvindesamfund (Danish Women's Society). He establishedthe Dansk Fredsforening (Danish Peace Union). And in 1892 he set up the Danishinter-parliamentary group. He was always involved in organizational work of thiskind. He was the only politician from a Nordic country who attended the interpar-liamentary meeting of 1889 and he was on this occasion elected as one of the sixvice-presidents of the assembly. His career within the international peace move-ment is well-known.9
7 Fredrik Bajer, Interparlamentariske Konferenccr (København, 1890), p. 3.8 There is a good survey of the activities of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Christian Lange,"Préparation de la Société des Nations" in P. Munch (ed), Les origines et l'oeuvre de la Société des Nations, pp.1 ff.9 A. C. F. Beales, The History of Peace (London, 1931 ). This work contains an extensive account of FredrikBajer's involvement in the international peace movement. Bajer has also given an account of his activitiesin his Livserindringer (1909). Bajer's place in Danish history is described in a number of works, e.g. K.Hvidt, Venstre og Forsvarssagen ( 1960), Troels Fink, Ustabil Balance ( 1961 ), Viggo Sjequist, Peter Vedel, vol. 2(1964) and H. Nielsen, Dansk Udenrigspolitik 1875-94 (1977).
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 187
It was an enduring characteristic of his activities that he very frequently thoughtin Nordic terms. This was true of the women's movement, the peace movement and,in a more narrow sense, the question of interparliamentary associations (as thebooklet he published in 1890, which contained his version of what had occurred atthe inter-parliamentary meeting of 1889, attests).
Fredrik Bajer's proposal concerning regular meetings of Nordic parliamentariansdid not lead to any immediate result. It is clear from his surviving correspondencethat he received some positive responses, but that there were far too few of them togive his ideas any chance of immediate adoption.10 However, in 1889 he had becomesecretary of the Danish inter-parliamentary group, and he retained this post until1916, even though he lost his seat in the Folketing at the 1895 elections and neversubsequently secured re-election. He represented Denmark at meetings of theInter-Parliamentary Union year after year, frequently as the sole Danish repre-sentative.
In the course of the eighteen-nineties attempts were made in various otherquarters to establish regular meetings between the inter-parliamentary groups ofthe three Nordic countries. In 1897 these efforts led to a meeting in Copenhagenbetween a number of Danish and Swedish parliamentarians, and they reachedagreement on the basis for a further meeting. In 1898 the Danish inter-parliamen-tary group issued an invitation to its Swedish and Norwegian counterparts to attenda delegate conference at which "common measures to promote neutrality andarbitration" would be discussed. It was envisaged that the meeting would takeplace in Christiana (Oslo)."
However, this was an awkward moment for discussing neutrality and arbitration.The relationship within the Swedish-Norwegian union was far from satisfactory,and the crisis of the union was approaching. This was the reason why the Danishinvitation (with Swedish agreement) suggested Christiania as the venue for themeeting. However, although a certain community of interests could be said to existbetween those liberal political groupings in Norway and Sweden which wereconcerned with the peace question and although there was certainly a betterunderstanding between them than there was between "official Sweden" and "offi-cial Norway", there was nonetheless no realistic prospect of arranging a jointconference at this time. The Norwegians declined the invitation on the grounds thatall their efforts would be devoted in the immediate future to trying to arrange that ameeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union should be held in Christiania.12
A meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union did take place in Christiania in1899, and on this occasion the various national delegations reported on the workthey hade been undertaking in their home countries. The chairman of the Danish
10 Fredrik Bajer's papers are kept partly in Det Kgl. Bibliotek (the Royal Library) and partly inRigsarkivet (The National Archives).11 Fredrik Bajer, Det nordiske interparlamentariske delegeretmodes Forhistorie (Kebenhavn, 1908), p. 7. Thiswork contains a detailed account of the course of events— and places Bajer at their centre!12 Ibid.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
188 Kmid Liasen
Inter-Parliamentary group, Sofus Hegsbro (who was also the speaker of the DanishFolketing) reported that the work of the Danish group had been restricted to seeking
a closer link with the Norwegian and Swedish groups so as to be better able totake joint initiatives aimed at persuading the governments of three closelyrelated peoples to declare their support for the permanent neutrality of thethree Nordic countries. These efforts have not so far led to any result, but weneither can nor wish to abandon our efforts to secure this goal.13
Despite this determination to perservere, it was not until after the final crisis of theSwedish-Norwegian union and its dissolution in 1905 that these efforts couldachieve any real results. At its annual meeting on 29 November 1905 the Danishinter-parliamentary group decided to set up a committee consisting of its chairman,Niels Nccrgaard, a member of the Folketing and a future prime minister, vice-chairman, P. Madsen-Mygdal, a member of the Landsling or upper chamber ofparliament, and secretary, Fredrik Bajer, with the task of "examining more closelythe idea ofa Scandinavian inter-parliamentary conference in Copenhagen".14 Aftermuch preparatory work, the Danes ultimately succeeded in surmounting the mainstumbling-block, namely the mutual hostility between Norway and Sweden. After aseries of private negotiations, the Danish initiators managed to set up a body whichcould undertake the task of preparing an inter-parliamentary conference proper.However, it is indicative of the strained relations that prevailed at the time that itwas necessary to emphasize that what was involved was "private consultations"between so-called "volunteers" (as opposed to delegates) from the three inter-parliamentary groups. In official circles, it was still hardly possible for Norwegiansand Swedes to be in the same room simultaneously.
These "private" consultations took place in Copenhagen on 16 and 17 June 1906.The outcome of the discussions was a plea that a Nordic inter-parliamentaryconference should be held in Copenhagen during 1907. This plea was the result ofaunanimous decision to the following effect:
The private inter-parliamentary committee of nine (three from each country)believes in the desirability of cooperation between the Nordic inter-par-liamentary groups, partly in order to promote the common interests of and agood understanding between the Nordic peoples and partly in order toprepare the way for concerted action over the international questions whichwill be discussed at inter-parliamentary peace conferences.15
The striking point about this decision is the reference to promoting cooperationbetween the Nordic peoples. By making this statement, the committee of nine wentmuch further than its formal brief allowed. All its members belonged to theinter-parliamentary group in their homelands, and it had been clear during the
13 Ibid.14 Ibid.15 Ibid.
Scand.J. Histoy 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 189
preparations for holding their meeting that the purpose of this meeting was todiscuss cooperation and joint Nordic action at conferences of the Inter-Parliamen-tary Union.
The decision of the committee of nine hade been watered down by the time thefinal invitation to attend a conference was issued in January 1907. The invitationnow stated that "the main purpose of the conference" (which was to take place "inthe second half of 1907")
would be to create a firm framework for cooperation between the Nordicinter-parliamentary groups so as to prepare the way for as wide-rangingconcerted action as possible at inter-parliamentary conferences held outsidethe Nordic kingdoms and generally to promote activity which serves thecommon interests of the Nordic peoples.16
Cooperation at international inter-parliamentary meetings had now once againbeen pushed to the forefront. The Norwegian inter-parliamentary group acceptedthe invitation without voicing any objections, but the Swedes expressed a number ofreservations. In their reply, the Swedes stated that they did not regard the holding ofa general conference as appropriate at that time. However, the Swedish inter-parliamentary group did on the other hand appreciate the value of discussing inadvance a number of issues which may arise at the next international conference soas to make possible concerted action by the representatives of the Nordic groups.17
It was self-evident that a meeting could only take place at all, if there were noopposition to it from any quarter. The views expressed by the Swedes were thereforeimmediately complied with. An invitation was issued to attend a delegate confer-ence, not a conference open to all members of the Nordic inter-parliamentarygroups, and it was not suggested that this meeting should concern itself withrelations between the Nordic states in a broader sense. Instead, it was clearly.statedthat the meeting would exclusively deal with cooperation at international inter-parliamentary gatherings. During the eighteen-nineties it had been the Norwegianswho, because of their bitterness over the union with Sweden, had declined toparticipate in common Nordic discussions. In 1907 it was the members of theSwedish inter-parliamentary group who, because of their bitterness over the dis-solution of the union, refused to take part in discussions of questions which solelyconcerned the Nordic states. Cooperation at international inter-parliamentarygatherings did not relate exclusively to the relations between the Nordic countriesand could therefore serve as a basis for a meeting.18
The meeting which was held in Copenhagen was a delegate conference with tenrepresentatives from each inter-parliamentary group.
16 Del nordiske interparlamentariske Delegeretmtde. Beretning afgivet of Mødets Praesidium (København, 1908),p. 1.17 Ibid.18 Bert Mårald, Det svenska Freds- och Neutralitetsrörelsens uppkomst (with an English summary) (Stockholm,1974). This essential work on the Swedish peace movement in the nineteenth century also deals with theconnection between the peace cause (and also the attitude of the intr r-parliamentary groups towards)and the dissolution of the Union.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
190 Kruid Ursen
4. The Copenhagen Conference and the Establishment of the Nordic lnUr-Parliamentaiy Union
The three Nordic countries had not reached the same stage of constitutionaldevelopment by 1907, and this was one reason why the delegates who assembled inCopenhagen did not operate under entirely the same set of conditions. By this time,parliamentarism had been established in both Denmark and Norway, and con-servative parties were largely without influence on the policies pursued in these twocountries. The introduction of parliamentary government had first occurred after1901 in Denmark and the members of the Danish inter-parliamentary group,associated as they were with the parties that had secured this victory for theparliamentary principle, had therefore only recently become members of "parties ofgovernment". In Norway, the parliamentary principle had already existed at thetime of the breakthrough of the inter-parliamentary movement in the earlyeighteen-nineties. The members of the Norwegian inter-parliamentary group werethe same politicians who had carried through the dissolution of the union withSweden and who had subsequently assumed the responsibilities of government. Incontrast, the members of the Swedish inter-parliamentary group were drawn fromthe Liberal and Social Democratic opposition.
It could therefore be said of the members of both the Danish and the Norwegianinter-parliamentry groups that they represented the dominant political line in theircountries. In the case of Denmark, the group contained individuals who togethercovered the whole party spectrum from the Free Conservatives to the SocialDemocrats. Norway presented a similar picture. However, in the case of Sweden,only 110 of the 230 members of the second (or lower) chamber of parliament andabout 10 of the 150 members of the first chamber belonged to the inter-parliamentrygroup. Only a minority of the members of the Swedish riksdag (parliament) thusbelonged to the inter-parliamentary group, and the latter was closely linked to theUnited Liberal Party and the Social Democrats, while the conservative side of theSwedish legislature stood aloof.
The seniority of the representatives the inter-parliamentary groups sent to themeeting in Copenhagen also differed markedly between the three countries. J. C.Christensen, who was both Prime Minister and Minister of Defence in Denmark,was a member of the Danish delegation, as was the speaker of the Landsting, H. N.Hansen. It is notable that the Danish delegation covered a wide political spectrum,containing representatives of the Free Conservatives, the various Liberal groupings,the Radicals and the Social Democrats.
The Norwegian delegation contained such prominent politicians as the Presidentof the Storting, Carl Berner, and two former ministers, Gunnar Knudsen and W.Konow, and its composition reflected the broad spectrum of parties represented inthe Storting. The Swedish delegation in contrast, contained no prominent politiciansand represented the Swedish opposition, not the Swedish government.
An inevitable consequence of these circumstances was that the delegate confer-ence came solely to concern itself with those international inter-parliamentaryquestions which the delegates had in common, and this was reflected in the agenda
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 191
of the meeting and the content of the discussions.19
The most notable result of the meeting in Copenhagen-was the decision to try toestablish a Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union. The delegates produced a fullydeveloped scheme which only required the final approval of the three Nordicinter-parliamentary groups before it could be put into effect.
The constitution of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union was based on aproposal by Fredrik Bajer, which entirely reflected his penchant for thinking inlarge, organizational terms. The three Nordic interparliamentary groups consti-tuted the base for the new organization, and it was proposed that the aims andpurposes of the joint activity of the three groups should be
first to promote the general objectives of the Inter-Parliamentary Union andsecondly to discuss questions of international law that are of special import-ance for the three Nordic kingdoms, while always seeking to develop the goodunderstanding between these kingdoms.20
It was proposed that the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union should consist of threeorgans: the plenary conference; the delegate conference; and the council. Theconference would simply be a plenary session of the three national inter-parliamen-tary groups. A delegate conference would consist of 12 elected representatives fromeach group as well as members of the council. The council would be made up of 3members from each country: the chairman and vice-chairman of each group plusone specially elected member.
This elaborate scheme never functioned in practice, because no steps were evertaken to summon a plenary conference. However, delegate conferences were heldsuccessively in each country every year between 1907 and 1947, and subsequentlyeach alternate year until 1957. The council, which functioned as a sort of executivecommittee, met frequently in order to make the preparations necessary for theholding of delegate conferences.
Niels Neergaard, the Danish politician and historian who served as president ofthe first delegate conference and who was chairman of the Danish inter-parliamen-tary group for many years (whenever he was not in office) has given sketch of theactivities of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union from the time of its establish-ment until 1918. He made the following assessment of the union's importance:
It cannot be denied that before the establishment of the Nordic union all theactivities of the international Inter-Parliamentary Union in reality seemedrather remote to very many members of the Nordic inter-parliamentarygroups. Some individuals concerned themselves consistently and energetical-ly with the work of the international organization, but since the latter dealtwith difficult and complex subjects and its discussions were conducted inFrench and the official reports of these discussions which were issued werealso written in that language, the great majority of members of the Nordic
19 The work cited in note 16 also contains minutes, appendices etc.2 0 Det nordiske interparlammtariske Delegeretmøde i København (1907), pp. 14 ff.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
192 KmtdLarstn
inter-parliamentary groups would only become involved through themedium of brief and occasional summaries. It is no exaggeration to say thatfor the great majority the activities of the international body first becameaccessible and alive through the annual reports which were distributed to allmembers of the Nordic organization.21
It is impossible to determine the degree to which Nordic parliamentarians energeti-cally and consciously involved themselves in the work of the Inter-ParliamentaryUnion. It should be remembered that the decade before 1914 was a period in whichinternational arbitration treaties enjoyed a sort of breakthrough and that the Nordiccountries played a prominent role in this process.22 It should also be rememberedthat the international Hague conferences were seen in the public debate as acontribution to securing the relaxation in international tension that was desired.Initially, the cause of peace was certainly associated closely with the parties of theleft, but in the course of this decade it began increasingly to concern the politicalcentre as well.
This whole trend was further strengthened by the outbreak of the First WorldWar. The Nordic countries succeeded in maintaining their neutrality during thisconflict, but the war naturally enough still created a growing interest in neutraliza-tion, international understanding and cooperation and in the cause of peace in abroad sense. The inter-parliamentary groups in the Nordic countries threw them-selves into this work, in concrete terms by taking part in the preparations for whatwas called "the third Hague conference" (which was never held), and moretentatively by considering whether peace could be restored and secured.23
At the same time as the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union was taking a growinginterest in the cause of peace, its activities were also developing in another sphere. In1911 the constitution of the union was altered so that it no longer was obliged toconcern itself solely with inter-parliamentary matters and questions of internationallaw but could now also deal with "other questions that are of special importance forthe relations of the three Nordic kingdoms with each other or with othercountries".24 The intention behind this change was to make possible the prepara-tion, under the Union's direction, of joint Nordic legislation in the fields of socialand commercial policy. The change had an immediate effect on the delegateconferences, and in the years before that First World War there was considerablediscussion of such topics as Nordic family law, Nordic civil law, the question of theneed for codified law and problems relating to Nordic economic cooperation.
21 Aarbog for de nordiske interparlamentariske Grupper. Første Aargang 1918. Published by Den danske interpar-lamentariske Gruppe and edited by A. Lauesgaard, pp. 1 ff.2 2 Denmark concluded a total of 12 such treaties between 1904 and 1911. Sweden-Norway concluded 6before the dissolution of the union, Sweden another seven between 1905 and 1913 and Norway sixbetween 1905 and 1910.2 3 Betānkande rötande en internationall rättsordning avgiven as därtill av Kungl. Maj:ts utsedda kommitterade,jämte
förslag till konvention, utarbetet as mcrmāmde kommitterade i samarbete med motsvarande av danska och norskaregeringama tillsatta kommitteir (Stockholm, 1919).2 4 Aarbog for de nordiske interparlamentariske Grupper. Firste Aargang (København, 1918), pp. 9—10.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 193
This change in the Union's constitution was therefore of particularly decisiveimportance. It reflected the more amicable relationship that had developed be-tween the Nordic states, and its practical result was that the Union was now in theprocess of evolving from a kind of regional organization under the Inter-Parliamen-tary Union into what has been called an "intergovernmental substitute for anauthoritative regional decision-making body".25
Another, decisive factor which is important for assessing the development of theunion is the question of the degree to which it was representative of the Nordicnational parliaments. It can be calculated that in 1918, 206 of-the 209 members ofthe Danish parliament belonged to the Danish inter-parliamentary group (andtherefore also to the plenary conference of the Union). The corresponding figures forNorway and Sweden respectively were 103 out of 115 and 257 out of 264. In otherwords, by this time no parliamentary grouping in any of the Nordic countries waswholly unrepresented, and it was not possible to ascribe any political significance tothe absense of a small number of parliamentarians, because they did not representan independent political force.26
In other words, membership had grown in the course of a ten-year period to sucha degree as to make the union a representative expression of parliamentary life in theNordic countries. This was a far cry from the "private initiative" which in 1906 hadcautiously laid the foundations for the union and its work.
The fact that the Union had become far more representative was clearly reflectedin its activities. There was no longer any question of private or semi-privatediscussions held in a social context and with the purpose of considering internation-al inter-parliamentary questions which were perhaps remote from the interests ofmany members. Instead, it was now possible to hold at least semi-official discus-sions on subjects that were of essential interest for the foreign policies of the Nordiccountries and to conduct discussions at the Union's meetings which might subse-quently lead to legislation or to cooperation between the three Nordic states.
The financial conditions enjoyed by the inter-parliamentary groups and theUnion also attest to the latter's altered status. In all three countries, work had begunon a private basis and was financed by the members themselves. However, around1918 all three groups began to receive considerable assistance from the state. For thefinancial year 1918—19, the Danish group was granted 3,000 Kr. for generalpurposes and 3,800 Kr. for participation in international meetings. In addition,there was a grant of 15,000 Kr. towards the cost of holding Nordic delegateconferences. In comparison, the membership subscription of 2 Kr. was whollywithout importance, and at any rate insufficient to maintain the fiction that thegroup was a private body. Precisely the same picture presents itself in the case of theNorwegian and Swedish groups. At this time, the Norwegian group received 11,800Kr. from the state and the Swedish group 21,000 Kr. The annual membershipsubscription was 1 Kr. in both countries.
25 Ibid., cf Stanley V . Andersson's definition.26 Ibid., pp. 59-78.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
194 Knud Larsen
For the purposes of comparison, it can be pointed out that the Danish primeminister's office had an annual budget in the same financial year for generalpurposes (administration, travel etc., but not salaries) of about 11,000 Kr. Thecorresponding figure for the foreign ministry was about 45,000 Kr. In other words,the three inter-parliamentary groups had quite considerable sums of money at theirdisposal.27
However, the most striking feature in the development of the Nordic Inter-Par-liamentary Union at this time is that it is possible to detect signs of what might becalled a fusing of the kind of discussions which were held in Nordic governmentcircles and the work which was done within the Union. This occurred in relation tothat part of foreign policy which concerned the peace settlement after the world war.
In November 1917 the foreign ministers of the Nordic countries agreed that threenational three-man committees should be appointed to discuss jointly and report onhow the interests of the neutral states might best be safeguarded at the peacesettlement. This decision was made with direct reference to the recommendationsthat such a step should be taken which emanated from the delegate conferences ofthe Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union in both 1916 and 1917.28
At least one prominent representative of inter-parliamentary activity wasappointed to each of the three committees. In the case of Denmark, it was NielsNeergaard, the chairman of the Danish inter-parliamentary group, and in the caseof Sweden, his Swedish opposite number, Baron Adelswärd. In the case of Norway,all three members of the committee belonged to the inter-parliamentary group andthe most prominent of them, Christian Lange, was the secretary-general of theInter-Parliamentary Union.29
The work of these three committees concentrated on 4 main points: 1) thecreation of a permanent system of international peace conferences (of the same typeas the Hague conferences); 2) an international undertaking to submit disputesbetween states to mediation or arbitration before any recourse to arms; 3) apermanent international court; and 4) an international body to examine andmediate in international conflicts.
The work of the three comittees led directly to the negotiations concerning theestablishment of the League of Nations which occurred in the spring of 1919.1 havewritten about these events in more detail elsewhere30, and I will therefore merelyemphasize here that from the autumn of 1917 until the peace settlement, or at anyrate until the negotiations concerning the foundation of the League of Nations wereconcluded, Nordic cooperation intensified greatly and the work conducted atministerial level and by the three committees became closely entwined. The cul-mination of this process occurred when in practice it was the members of the three
27 Ibid., pp. 28 ff.28 Knud Larsen, Forsvar og Folkeforbund (Aarhus, 1976), p. 191.29 Ibid., p. 195.30 Ibid., pp. 183-234.
Scand.J. HUtoiy 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 195
committees who, during the negotiations at the Versailles conference, put forwardthe views of the Nordic states on the nature of international organizations in thepostwar period.
It is perhaps possible to describe these developments as an intensification of thetrends that had marked inter-parliamentary activity in the Nordic countries fromthe very first. The Nordic interparliamentary groups had always been greatlyconcerned with the cause of peace between states and the creation of institutionswhich might help to preserve peace. They had attached particular importance tothe sort of international body that might promote compulsory arbitration or media-tion. What happened during the world war was was that the parliamentary "grassroots movement" which emerged on the left wing of the political spectrum in thecighteen-eighties now became accepted as an element, indeed an essential element,among the decision-making bodies which shaped Nordic attitudes towards theinternational issues of the time. The fact that the three Nordic countries were allneutral and were all relatively isolated during the war was undoubtedly the primaryfactor in strengthening the role of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union. Theexternal pressure exercised by the war made the cause of peace a general concern, amatter of the highest priority to the governments, parliaments and peoples of theNordic countries. It was precisely in such a situation that a body like the NordicInter-Parliamentary Union was useful. In its origins, it was, by the terms of itsconstitution, an organized peace movement among Nordic parliamentarians. Oneof the assumptions behind inter-parliamentary activity was a belief that it was thedemocratically-minded states which had a special mission in the search for interna-tional peace. The significance of this assumption was reinforced by the fact thatdemocratic ideals where pushed to the forefront when the belligerents defined theirwar aims. Another factor which helped to bring the Nordic Inter-ParliamentaryUnion to the fore was that because of its wide membership, it had become sorepresentative of the Nordic parliaments that the Nordic governments had noreservations about using it, especially perhaps over matters in which it was inadvis-able to involve official policy too deeply but in which it was desirable to test certainoptions both practically and politically.
A "grass roots movement" had thus become a part of a Nordic foreign policy"establishment".
5. New Tasks
There was also a great expansion in the Union's activities during the years after1911 in what might be called the inter-Nordic field. As we have seen, the constitu-tion of the Union was altered in that year in order to enable it to concern itself withquestions other than those which related to international law, but once again it wasthe war and its consequences for the Nordic states which served as a catalyst. Itbecame customary at delegate conferences held during the war years to include onthe agenda large topics affecting all the Nordic states like "the commercial andshipping policies of the Nordic kingdoms during the war" (this subject was debatedevery year between 1915 and 1917), "social welfare and social legislation in thethree Nordic kingdoms during the war" (1917) or "economic cooperation between
ScanJ.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
196 Ktaiä Lañen
the Nordic countries during and after the world war" (1918).3'The usual pattern during these debates was that long and detailed introductory
speeches were given by one speaker from each country. A report was then normallyadopted, after a fairly brief debate, and then submitted to the three Nordic govern-ments.
It is easy to trace the influence exercised by the Union in matters of this kind. Itwas decided at a Nordic ministerial conference in Copenhagen in 1918 to "appointrepresentatives of the Nordic governments to investigate jointly the possibility ofestablishing cooperation in the field of social policy".32 This decision was taken withdirect reference to a report on the subject from the Nordic Inter-ParliamentaryUnion. Similar examples can be found in other fields. A topic which the Unionpersistently discussed was whether the Nordic area could become what was called a"centre for scientific work". With direct reference to these discussions and thereports on the subject produced by the Union, the Danish government decided toset up the "Rask-0rsted Foundation" to pursue the objectives in this field suggestedby the Union.33 In the economic sphere, the first signs of far-reaching cooperationcan be discerned, and in 1918 the Swedish government appointed a customs andtreaty commission, which was given the task of meeting delegates from Denmarkand Norway in order to draw up a plan for future economic and commercialcooperation between the three states.34
The same procedure was adopted in all these cases. A question was discussed atone or several delegate conferences of the Union, and the Nordic governmentssubsequently responded positively to the reports, which were phrased as recom-mendations, that were submitted to them. This was a method of working which isquite similar to that subsequently employed by the Nordic Council. In the case ofthe Nordic Council, this method is described in article 10 of its constitution, whichstates that
The Council has the task of discussing questions of common interest for theNordic countries and to adopt recommendations to the Nordic governmentsconcerning such questions. These recommendations shall be accompanied bya statement whether each number of the council voted.35
I will not attempt in this article to "measure" whether the effect of recommenda-tions from the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union during its heyday was greater orlesser than the effect of similar recommendations from the Nordic Council. Thedecisive point for our purposes is that the procedure and method of working which
31 Aarbog for de nordiske interpartamentariske Grupper. Ferste Aargang (København, 1918), Appendix 9,pp. 28 ff. Cf the reports from the delegate conferences of preceding years.3 2 Ibid.3 3 Ibid.3 4 Ibid.3 5 The constitution of the Nordic Council was approved in identical terms by the Danish Rigsdag on 28May 1952, the Icelandic Alting on 10 December 1952, the Norwegian Storting on 25 June 1952, and theSwedish Riksdag on 17 May 1952.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 197
the Union chose or developed closely resembled the method of working employed inthe case of the Nordic Council. This can hardly be a coincidence.
6. The Administrative System
The last dimension that is of interest for a comparison of the Nordic Inter-Par-liamentary Union and the Nordic Council is the question of secretarial assistance.When Niels Neergaard in 1918 penned his assessment of the Union, he wrote, that
"In 1918 a plan came into effect which will undoubtedly be of great import-ance in giving a firmer form to Nordic interparliamentary cooperation. Thisplan concerned secretarial assistance and involved creating out of the threenational secretariats a general secretariat with fixed rules for cooperation andthe task of publishing a common year book and periodic communicationsfrom the Nordic inter-parliamentary groups."36
According to the instructions which were drawn up in 1917 for "cooperationbetween the secretaries of the Nordic inter-parliamentary groups", the threenational secretaries should jointly work out a plan for the coming year's work andshould produce an account at the end of the year of what had been done. Together,the secretaries would constitute a general secretariat with normal secretarial func-tions. These instructions along with further stipulations concerning working proce-dures were approved by the delegate conference in 1918.37
This did not mean that the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union had acquired anindependent secretariat in the sense that staff were appointed with the exclusivetask of meeting the Union's secretarial needs. The three secretaries to the nationalinter-parliamentary groups were all in addition employed as senior officials by therespective national parliaments and the other personnel that were placed at theUnion's disposal to assist its committee work or at its conferences was also em-ployed by the parliament of the host country.
By the standards of the nineteen-eighties, this constitutes a very limited degree ofsecretarial assistance, but this matter should be viewed in relation to the situationwhich prevailed at that time. The degree of bureaucratization in all branches of theadministration was far less at the time of the First World War than it was after theSecond World War. In view of the small total number of people who were directlyemployed in performing administrative tasks for the parliaments of the Nordiccountries, it would have been quite inconceivable to create a larger secretariat forthe Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is therefore reasonable to accept Neer-gaard's opinion that the secretariat was greatly strengthened by the plan adopted in1918.
In this connection, it is striking that there is no great difference between thedegree of administrative assistance enjoyed by the Nordic Inter-ParliamentaryUnion and that given to the Nordic Council when it was set up. According to the
3 6 Aarbog for de nordiske interparlamentriske Grupper. Første Aargang (København, 1918), pp. 1 3 - 1 4 ,3 7 Ibid., p. 49.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
198 Knud Ursen
Nordic Council's constitution of 1952, each national delegation should have asecretariat, and in particular it would maintain and extend contact with govern-ment ministries in order to carry out the work of the Nordic Council. However, therewas no question at that time of creating a large secretariat. On this subject, FrantzWendt has written that
"In their effort to keep the administrative apparatus within a narrowframework, the fathers of the Nordic Council did not content themselves withmaking the various national secretariats small. They also refrained fromsetting up a joint secretariat, and this was unusual for an internationalorganization."38
The men who established the Nordic Council were thus anxious to ensure anadministrative link between the Council and the legislatures of the Nordic coun-tries. Accordingly, a number of secretarial functions, and especially the provision ofadministrative assistance to council committees and full sessions of the council,were performed by officials employed in the central administrations of the Nordiccountries. The bureaucratization of the Nordic Council which began in earnestduring the early nineteen-seventies was not a characteristic of its early years.
It is thus not possible in the administrative field either to detect any significantdifference between the situation in 1918 and that which prevailed during the firstyears of the Nordic Council. For many years, Fredrik Bajer was the natural focalpoint in both Danish and international (including Nordic) inter-parliamentaryactivity. However, with the expansion in activity and in the range of tasks performedwhich began around the time of the outbreak of the First World War, it was nolonger possible to carry out the work of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union onthe basis of largely voluntary secretarial assistance. The grass roots movement of theearly years had been absorbed into the bureaucratic jungle.
7. The Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Nordic Council
The organic link between the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union and the NordicCouncil was to some extent broken because of the fact that the Union declined inimportance during the interwar period. The difficult economic conditions of thetime and the consequent tendency for the individual Nordic countries to takenational measures to protect their economies on the one hand, and the lively Nordicinvolvement in the work of the League of Nations on the other, created a set ofcircumstances in which it was difficult to find a need and a natural tempo for thekind of close Nordic cooperation which had emerged by 1918.
The external pressure which had led to growth in the Union's activities dis-appeared for a time. It is indicative that when the pressure again began to mount,calls for Nordic cooperation were again heard. In the years 1938—39 the Danes
38 Frantz, Wendt, Nordisk Räd 1952-78, p. 34.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Scandinavian Grass Roots 199
sought to bring about closer cooperation, but this attempt failed, above all becausethe Norwegians were unwilling to participate. The Danish scholar, Ole KarupPedersen, has written on the subject of these early attempts to turn the Union intosomething resembling the council that
"In view of this clear competition (between the great power camps in Europeaimed at capturing public opinion in the world) and the emergence of a cleardivision of the great powers into different camps, a division which might lead,though it did not necessarily have to lead, to an armed conflict between them,P. Munch put forward his proposal which sought to emphasize Nordicsolidarity in the eyes of the outside world".39
This description could be applied more generally to at least the Danish approach tothe need for close Nordic cooperation.
It is therefore a description that is also valid for the circumstances which led to theestablishment of the Nordic Council in 1952. In my opinion, this event represents anextension and development of a dimension in Nordic regional foreign policy whichhad already been frequently tested rather than a new departure. There wereconcrete reasons for strengthening Nordic cooperation at that time, not least theemergence of two great power blocs in the world. It was therefore sensible to rely onforms of organization and constitutional provisions that had already been tested inthe Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union. It was no coincidence that the formal basisfor the creation of the Nordic Council was the endorsement in principle which theNordic Inter-Parliamentary Union gave to Hans Hedtoft's proposal on this subjectat its 28th delegate conference. Nor was it a coincidence that the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union was not dissolved in consequence of the establishment of theNordic Council. The Union was only dissolved in 1957, and the reason for itssurvival until then must of course be seen in the fact that Finland did not become amember of the Nordic Council until 1955.
At the delegate conference which followed Finland's adherence to the NordicCouncil, the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union dissolved itself. The inheritancehad now been passed on in full. The clear connection between the two organizationsis perhaps best illustrated by a passage from the speech with which AlsingAndersen, the chairman of the Danish inter-parliamentary group, opened thedelegate conference of 1955, which was held in the middle of the transitionaryprocess:
"The establishment of the Nordic Council raised the question of what busi-ness remained the proper concern of the Nordic inter-parliamcntary delegateconferences. Agreement was rapidly reached that these delegate conferencesought to continue, thought they should avoid those concrete questions whichwere ripe for consideration by the Nordic Council... Even when Finland
39 Ole Karup Pedersen, Udenrigsminister P. Munchs opfattelse af Danmarks stilling i en international politik(København, 1970), p. 369.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
200 Knud Lañen
ultimately joins the Nordic Council... I feel confident that sufficient taskswill remain for the Nordic inter-parliamentry groups."40
Properly understood, this speech indirectly handed over the Union's duties to thecouncil. As the council expanded and in particular after Finland became a member,there would no longer be tasks for the old Union to perform, because the lattershould avoid matters that were ripe for consideration by the council. In view of theoverlapping functions and similar constitutions of the two bodies, it is clear thatAlsing Andersen envisaged that the Union would in practice ultimately be woundup.
However, if the history of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Union is properlyinterpreted, it is also clear that we are confronted with a remarkably long traditionof regional cooperation based on an inter-parliamentary body which had the task ofadvising the Nordic governments. This tradition is longer and more intense than inany other region of the world. There is an unbroken line of development from thattime when the three founding states — Denmark, Norway and Sweden — acquiredthe same level of national sovereignty. Cooperation was not always equally intense,and the line of development did not demonstrate constant progress towards everhigher forms of cooperation. However, when the internal driving force towardscooperation, namely the existence ofthat linguistic and cultural community whichwas mentioned in the introduction to this article, coincided wiüi external pressurewhich was felt by all the Nordic states, there was a clear tendency towards moreintense Nordic cooperation either through the development of organizations thatalready existed or through the creation of new bodies. In this way, a Nordicgrassroots movement was transformed into a permanent element among inter-Nordic organizations. It is useful to bear this long line of development in mind whenthe question of the future of the Nordic Council is raised.
4 0 Det 30. nardiske interparlamentariske delegeretmøde i Københam (København, 1955), p. 16.
Scand.J. History 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
05:
42 2
6 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
