Op-ed: The World of Yesterday: Time for a Joint Nordic Approach to the High North

Les denne kronikken på norsk

This is an opinion piece written by external contributors. All views expressed are the writer's own.

When the famous Austrian author Stefan Zweig wrote his well-known book Die Welt von Gestern in the 1930s, the far north was considered a remote region, distant from the major disruptions Europe was facing after World War I.

Reflecting on the profound cultural and political upheavals that shattered European society during the early 20^th century, Zweig lamented the loss of a more optimistic world, emphasising the impact of war, totalitarianism, and modernity on European civilization.

While the 1920 Svalbard Treaty introduced a unique perspective on sovereignty and international collaboration, the European Arctic was peripheral to the dissolution of a centuries-old European order. 

Today, however, this picture has changed. The northern parts of northern Europe (i.e. the High North) are increasingly affected by a global Zeitenwende.

Naturally, this relates to the disruptive and multifaceted changes that global warming has brought to the region over the past three decades.

And yet, what we have seen recently has not only been an accelerated transformation of Mother Nature but also a profound alteration of our well-established liberal international order of rules, norms, and institutions, dominated by a single hegemonic superpower.

Perhaps we have even witnessed the first manifestations of its dissolution.  

Europe in a new geopolical reality 

Certainly, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered our Western understanding of sovereignty, territoriality, and the peaceful coexistence of neighbouring countries (if one overlooks the events of the Balkan wars in the 1990s).

However, the first two months of the second Trump administration have eventually revealed what we Europeans should have realized much earlier: Europe is indeed the ‘world of yesterday’.

With old partnerships and friendships cracking, we need to honestly debate our place in this changing world—a discussion of utmost importance for the High North. 

Despite long-held hopes that the region would remain isolated from troubles elsewhere, the past three years have proven otherwise, dispelling with the illusion of an exceptional Arctic political community.

President Trump’s most recent statements about the future of Greenland may only be the epitome of this impression. Other examples abound, from joint military activities of China and Russia off the coast of Alaska, to Russia withdrawing from Barents cooperation and its pivot to the BRICS grouping to pursue Arctic ambitions.

Arctic ‘unity’, if such a thing ever existed, has fractured. Left standing are the European countries, with the Nordic states at the forefront. 

A new North-Nordic approach 

What does this mean for the immediate and long-term future of the High North? First, we need to accept that the region—as complex as it is—has risen on the strategic agenda of the world’s powers.

Neither can we shelter regional dynamics, nor can we ignore Arctic conversations being held in Beijing, New Delhi and Dubai.

Second, and simultaneously, we need to understand that despite this development, the European Arctic is not the centre of the world. Third, we must be mindful of this discrepancy.

We are impacted by global politics, but we do not dictate it. 

For the states of the High North—the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—this means more collaboration, more cooperation, and more co-occurrence.

The emphasis should be on the shared High North part of the Nordic countries, i.e. the North Nordic (Nord-Nordisk). These combined efforts should go beyond bilateral efforts or even the Nordic Council of Ministers, but aim to reach the centres of European power, whether Berlin, London, Paris, Rome, or, most importantly, EU-Brussels. 

As of 2024, all Nordic states are part of NATO, leading to heightened expectations of what Nordic collaboration can achieve—not just in defence policies and strategic planning, but also in other areas.

There are expectations of increased regional cross-border collaboration in the North, expanded pan-Nordic infrastructure, and greater research and education across the five countries.

All of this is needed—and long overdue. Yet, we are still waiting for concrete measures that could foster Nordic ‘unity’ in the High North. 

Challenges for Nordic cooperation 

There are reasons why initiating North-Nordic cooperation sounds easier than it is. Despite (partly) shared values, histories, languages and cultures, these countries do not share the same outlook on Arctic and High North issues.

While Copenhagen and Reykjavik look westward, Oslo looks northward toward the Barents Sea, and Stockholm and Helsinki focus on the Baltics and north-west Russia.  

However, despite these differences, it is time that the Nordic countries start acting more as a coherent bloc, particularly in the face of today’s regional and global disruptions in the span between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

The alternative is that the future of the High North will not be decided in their capitals—or, for that matter, in the regions of the North—but rather in capitals closer to the equator than the North. 

Acting with unity can foster a more cohesive European, and even EU approach to Arctic issues ranging from detecting hybrid operations to enabling joint research and investment schemes in the North. 

The path toward stronger cooperation in the North

Next week, we will discuss the new realities of the High North at the annual High North Dialogue conference in Bodø, Norway.

This is a first but necessary step to prove that we—the Nordics, the Europeans—are not the ‘world of yesterday’, but rather its future: coming together to form a new Nord-Nordisk.

As Stefan Zweig reflected, the tumultuous changes in Europe during the early 20^th century not only led to the disintegration of an old European order but also to the loss of personal and intellectual freedom.

This is not to say that we must defend an old system at all costs, but rather that we must be at the forefront of discussions about an order that is crucial to our own future—both as a society and as individuals.