1. Introduction
Communication is the key to any successful relationship. This is also the case for the Commonwealth, especially when it comes to handling the ever-increasing challenges in the Arctic area. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the climate changes have brought the Arctic area high on the agenda in international politics. In particular, the climate changes have caused the ice to rapidly melt and consequently opened for new resource extraction and trade routes. These changes also bring up a potential for conflict and rivalry between great powers like the USA, China, and Russia. Especially Greenland as an Arctic country is affected by all these changes and therefore makes the Arctic a central priority for the Commonwealth. Cooperation and good communication therefore must be at the center of attention for the Commonwealth in the future.
In my thesis, I study the different discourses represented by Danish parliamentary politicians and how these discourses talk about and constitute the Commonwealth. Hereby the thesis contributes to solving the challenge of creating good internal communication in the Commonwealth between Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Denmark. By studying the Danish discourses, I discuss the state of the internal policy room of action of the Commonwealth’s foreign policy in the Arctic as of today. Marc Jacobsen (2019) has in his Ph.D. shown how the Danish parliamentary politicians in the period from 2008-2015 have articulated Denmark as the leader of the Commonwealth when it comes to solving matters of foreign policy in the Arctic (Jacobsen 2019, s. 13-14). In my thesis, I study how the Danish parliamentary politicians constitute the Commonwealth in the period from 2016-2021 and how this affects the political room of action for the Commonwealth’s foreign policy in the Arctic. This leads to the research question of the thesis:
How do the Danish parliamentary politicians constitute the Commonwealth in the parliamentary debates about the Commonwealth and foreign policy in the Arctic in the period from 2016-2021, and which political room of action does it create for the Commonwealth’s foreign policy in the Arctic?
2. Theory
Poststructuralism and discourses
I have a poststructuralist theoretical baseline in the thesis. According to poststructuralists, the social world is constructed by language. Language organizes into discourses that constantly reproduce or change social reality (Jørgensen & Phillips 1999, p. 18; Larsen 2020, p. 471). Ontologically poststructuralists presume that there is not any absolute meaning or truth, and epistemologically all our knowledge is mediated through discourses. The social world's ‘meaning’ or ‘truth’ is constructed through discourses (A. Hansen 2012, p. 236-237; Philipsen 2012, p. 160). We can therefore say that discourses actively form the social world.
This theoretical baseline shows us that the Commonwealth is a construction created through verbal articulations and therefore comes from a certain perspective. The Commonwealth as a fellowship could have been and can be organized differently depending on how we construct it through discourses. In the thesis, I study how the Commonwealth is constructed and seen from a Danish point of view.
The layered model
To structure my analysis, I have used Ole Wæver’s (2002) layered model. The main idea behind the model is that by studying domestic discourses on ‘we’-concepts like state, nation, the people, and for example the Arctic, you can explain foreign policies. Wæver (2002) is inspired by poststructuralists like Foucault and Laclau and Mouffe. Like Foucault, Wæver also sees discursive structures as consisting of multiple layers where some layers are more sedimented and harder to change than other layers of the discursive structure (Wæver 2002, p. 20). According to Wæver the most sedimented ‘we’-concepts can be seen as an important ‘engine’, which over time forms a country’s identity, its Self, and hereby explain the country’s overall foreign policies (Wæver 2002, p. 20+24). Therefore, I consider the model as a layered domestic discursive structure, that can be used to describe a country’s foreign policy identity in a specific area.
In my analysis, I apply the layered model to the Danish foreign policy identity in the Arctic. Through the reading of my empirical data, I have found that there are three layers in this discursive structure: 1) The Danish Self – the connection between the Danish state, people, and nation and how Greenland and the Faroe Islands is related hereof, 2) the relation between the Danish Self and the Commonwealth, and 3) how the Commonwealth is articulated as a foreign policy actor. By studying these three layers I am able to describe the current state of the Commonwealth’s foreign policy room of action in the Arctic from a Danish point of view.
Self-Other perspectives
As an additional theoretical perspective, I also use Lene Hansen’s (2006) theory of Self-Other constellations. The layered model focuses on the identity of the country, the Self, and how ‘we’-concepts can explain the country’s overall foreign policy in a certain area. With the Self-Other constellations, I also see how the Self’s construction of Others affects the identity of the Self and therefore also how it affects the overall foreign policy actions in the area.
3. Method
My research design is based on a series of choices suggested by Hansen (2006) on how to use discourse analysis to study the interaction between identity and foreign policy. According to Hansen, four parameters need to be considered in order to create an in-depth and systematical discourse analysis:
- What is the temporal perspective?
- Which events are being studied?
- How many Selves (point of views) are being studied?
- Intertextual models: What kind of texts are included in the analysis?
In the thesis, I study the Danish discourses about the Commonwealth as one event in the period from 2016-2021. As a consequence, there is only one Self, the Danish Self, in the study. Greenland and the Faroe Islands as Selves are not studied, wherefore their point of view is not included in the discourse analysis. I have chosen to use the first and second intertextual models to study the Danish discourses. These models allow me to include statements and texts from both the government and the political opposition. I have selected my empirical data through three criteria: The text should 1) have a clear articulation of identities and policies (in this case policies about the Arctic and the Commonwealth), 2) be widely attended to, and 3) have a formal authority to define a political position (L. Hansen 2006, p. 85). Through these criteria I selected 37 parliamentary debates and §20 questions that I have read and analyzed three times with different focus points. The research design’s comparative element lies in the temporal perspective, where I divide the studied period into two periods. The first period is from 2016 until the election in 2019, when Lars Løkke Rasmussen was the prime minister, while the second period is from the election in 2019 up until 2021, where Mette Frederiksen was the prime minister. Hereby I can compare the evolution of the discourses over a short period of time.
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysis is the method used in the thesis. It is an analytical approach of studying the articulations of the different layers in the discursive structures, for example the three layers in the three discourses represented by the Danish parliamentary politicians in the Danish parliament.
The main strength of discourse analysis is the fact that we can analyze exactly what is said and therefore also what kind of policy this is legitimizing. Moreover, we do not have to interpret the intentions behind what is said (Wæver 2000, p. 284f). This is a great methodological advantage when studying foreign policy where much is hidden. But as a scientist studying the discourses, it is also very important to acknowledge that the scientist cannot escape the discourses. Jørgensen and Phillips (1999) recommend that the scientist uses a systematical and transparent approach when studying the discourses, for example, a theoretical framework (p. 33). Therefore, I use the layered model as a theoretical guideline and structure for my discourse analysis. I have also fully represented the three discourses in a row of displays, which strengthens the validity of the analysis (Dahler-Larsen 2012, p. 192-194).
4. Results from the analysis
In the discourse analysis, I find that there are three different Danish discourses about the Commonwealth represented in the Danish Parliament. When comparing the two periods from 2016-2019 and 2019-2021 the main result is that all three discourses constitute the Commonwealth as a strong fellowship they want to preserve and evolve. All three discourses also want to give Greenland and the Faroe Islands more influence in the common foreign policy in the Arctic. However, they disagree on how to evolve and organize the Commonwealth in the future. On that basis, I conclude that the Danish foreign policy identity in the Arctic today is characterized by a dimming of the Danish role and a highlighting of a joint cooperation between Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Denmark in the common foreign policy in the Arctic.
If we look at the three discourses separately, it is one of the opposing discourses represented by the Danish People’s Party that changes the most from 2016-2021. The discourse changes fundamentally from including Greenland and the Faroe Islands in the Danish ‘we’ and treating them as ‘children’ who need help from ‘mother’ Denmark to acknowledging Greenland and the Faroe Islands as their own countries and allowing them to have a bigger say in matters like foreign policy in the Arctic. The other opposing discourse represented by the Unity List, the Social People’s Party and the Alternative changes the least of the three discourses. This discourse holds on to the idea that Denmark should allow Greenland and the Faroe Islands to remain in the Commonwealth when they become sovereign states independent of Denmark. According to the discourse, this is the natural and modern evolution of the Commonwealth. The hegemonic discourse represented by the rest of the parties in the Danish Parliament emphasize the fact that the Danish constitution does not allow Greenland and the Faroe Islands to stay part of the Commonwealth if they vote yes to sovereignty. Instead of sovereignity, they argue that Greenland and the Faroe Islands can gain the more autonomy and remain part of the Commonwealth, especially in the foreign policy area. In the studied period the hegemonic discourse also transitions from articulating the Commonwealth as ‘the Danish realm’ to ‘the realm’ or ‘the Commonwealth’ whenever they talk about the Commonwealth as a foreign policy actor. This shows us how these parties go from a hierarchical understanding of the Commonwealth’s foreign policy where Denmark has the last say to a more equal understanding where all three actors have a say.
The increased political room of action for the Faroe Islands and Greenland
Compared to earlier where Denmark decided and planned most of the foreign policy in the Arctic on behalf of the Commonwealth, the contemporary three Danish discourses’ constitution of the Commonwealth as an equal partnership creates a new foreign policy room of action in the Arctic. In this new foreign policy room, the Danish influence is decreasing while the Greenlandic and Faroese influence is increasing. Consequently, three instead of one must agree on the joint policy in the Arctic, which creates some challenges for the Commonwealth in terms of acting quickly and efficiently. It also creates challenges in terms of internal relations in the Commonwealth and external relations to for example the EU and the United States because Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands have different policy interests, especially when it comes to trade and valuebased policy.
5. Perspectives: greater understanding and better communication in the Commonwealth
Currently, the Danish government and the Greenlandic government have started an investigation of the historical relationship between Greenland and Denmark to discover if there are more cases to be found like ‘the experimental children’ or ‘the spiral campaign’ that need to be handled and talked about.
Firstly, the results of my thesis could benefit this investigation by showing how the Danish politicians’ view of Greenland and their understanding of the Commonwealth has evolved and changed dramatically since the 1950s and 1960s when these cases originally ocurred. Today the Danish politicians no longer talk about Greenland in the metaphor of a ‘child’ and Denmark as its ‘mother’. Instead, they articulate the relationship as an ‘equal partnership’. This also illustrates that the Danish politicians no longer have a static understanding of the Commonwealth, but instead have a dynamic understanding that evolves with time. Raising awareness of this benefits both the Greenlandic and Danish politicians. First, it can be a reminder to the Greenlandic politicians that they are able to influence the Danish politicians and the way the Commonwealth evolves as a fellowship in the future. It also shows the Greenlandic politicians what they can expect of the Danish politicians, and moreover where they agree and disagree which can prevent misunderstandings between them. For example, we see in this thesis that most of the Danish parties in the Danish Parliament talk about the Commonwealth as an ‘equal partnership’, which they can remind the Danish politicians if they behave otherwise. At the same time, it could benefit the Danish parliamentary politicians because they become more aware that the way they talk about the Commonwealth matters. Their words matter and how they speak matters in the relationship with Greenland and the Faroe Islands.
Secondly, the results could also benefit the relationship and cooperation between Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Denmark in general because it shows how all the Danish parliamentary politicians today in different ways are trying to evolve the Commonwealth and its foreign policy in the Arctic in a certain direction. A direction where they want to involve Greenland and the Faroe Islands more and make them feel part of an equal partnership. It also shows how important it would be for the Commonwealth if they talked more about what each member expects from the fellowship in the future and thereby become more aware of similarities and differences. As I elaborated in the introduction, close cooperation in the Commonwealth is indeed necessary now and in the future due to the increasing interest in the Arctic area in terms of trade, climate change and resource extraction. On top of that, the war in Ukraine between Russia and Ukraine also puts great pressure on the collaboration in the Arctic where Russia is one of the five coastal states. This makes it very vulnerable for Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Denmark to stand alone. The considerations of my thesis could therefore be one of many pieces in a puzzle of creating stronger cooperation and fellowship between Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands.
Thirdly, the new policy room of action for the Commonwealth’s foreign policy in the Arctic where Denmark has less to say, and Greenland and the Faroe Islands have more to say, combined with the increasing interest in the Arctic area also shows us that the administration of the Commonwealth could use a reorganization or should be allocated more resources. More resources could be prioritized to the preparation of the anticipated common Arctic strategy, where important matters like trade, fishing quotas and relations with the EU, Russia, China, and the USA are discussed. To be specific, this could for example be through a strengthening of the newly founded contact committee or creating a new forum consisting of members from both the Danish Parliament, Folketinget, the Greenlandic Parliament, Inatsisartut, and the Faroese Parliament, Løgtingið.
Specialet er indstillet til specialekonkurrencen 2022.