The aim of this essay was to examine what problems, causes and solutions three Swedish governments identified concerning three decisions of cooperation with NATO, and to understand these decisions with constructivism and hard and soft power as theoretical perspectives. The first was the decision to join Partnership for Peace in 1994. The second decision was to join the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997. The third decision was to join a host nation support with NATO in 2016. The analysis showed that problems regarding PfP was an unpredictable security situation, caused by the fall of the Soviet Union. This gave rise to new conflicts, e.g. the conflict in Yugoslavia. Russia was identified as a problem also regarding the EAPC, caused by a Russian superpower identity. Problems identified before joining the HNS was that Russia was aggressive and annexed the Ukrainian peninsula Crimea in 2014. This was caused by the Russian leadership prioritizing the defence sector. The identified problems and causes can be understood with the theory of hard power, since the Russian hard power resources are wielded both within and outside of Russia. Constructivism is useful to understand what solutions the governments proposed, since they often express an ambition to build a common identity, while keeping the Swedish identity as non-aligned. Also, soft power resources made the alliance more attractive for the Swedish governments.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:lnu-79883 |
| Date | January 2019 |
| Creators | Nordin, Ingrid |
| Publisher | Linnéuniversitetet, Institutionen för statsvetenskap (ST) |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds