https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0130-7314
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The actions of a state in foreign policy are often linked to the capabilities or forms of strength available to its government, including the organization of defence with civilian support. This connection frequently manifests at the discursive level. In this article, we argue that the discourses on foreign policy and references by political elites to citizens’ willingness to defend their country serve as messages that bolster the state’s foreign and defence policies under various historical conditions. By leveraging discourse, these messages seek to reinforce the perception of defence capability in the context of foreign policy. Our qualitative analysis of Swedish and Finnish political debates and key documents from the early Cold War era through the 2010s demonstrates that the populace’s willingness to defend has consistently been emphasized as a crucial component of a credible military defence, thereby supporting a stance of neutrality or non-alignment in foreign policy.
KEYWORDS:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Tarabar and Hall, “Explaining the Worldwide Decline”; Cohen, Citizens and Soldiers; Hadar and Häkkinen, “Conscription and Willingness to Defend”; Maass, Small States in World, 139–204.
2. In the references section ‘Valtiopäivät’ features the sources utilized until 1996, and ‘Eduskunta’ from 1997 onwards.
3. E.g. Häkkinen, From Counterrevolution to Consolidation?, 35; Ihalainen, The Springs of Democracy, 37–9.
4. Wiesner et al., Debates, Rhetoric and Political; Ihalainen and Palonen, “Parliamentary Sources in the Comparative”; Skinner, Visions of Politics; Ihalainen, The Springs of Democracy, 37–9; Müller, “On Conceptual History”; Ihalainen and Matikainen, “The British Parliament”.
5. See Baker Fox, “The Power of Small States,” 40–53.
6. Mjøset and van Holden, ”Killing for the State”; Häkkinen “Velvollisuus puolustaa omaa maata”.
7. Häkkinen et al., ”Maanpuolustustahto ilmiönä, käsitteenä”; Rossbach, Fighting Propaganda.
8. E.g. Shapiro, “Public Opinion and American Democracy”; Shapiro and Page, “Foreign Policy and the Rational Public”; Knecht and Weatherford, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy”; Leeper and Slothuus, ”Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning”; Holsti, Public Opinion and American; Chan and Safran, “Public Opinion as a Constraint”; Lai and Reiter, “Rally ‘Round the Union Jack?”; Davis, “Swords into Ploughshares”; Paterson, “Presidential Foreign Policy, Public Opinion, and Congress”; Mommsen, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in Wilhelmian Germany”; Rosati et al., “A New Perspective on the Foreign Policy Views”; Laulicht, “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy Decisions”; Foster, “The Politicians, Public Opinion and the Press”; Towle, Going to War; Wright, “Public Opinion and Conscription in France”; Lebow, A Cultural Theory; Bloom, Personal Identity, National Identity and International Relations.
9. Sellström, Sweden and National Liberation in Southern Africa; Berndtsson et al., “Swedish and British Public Opinion of The Armed Forces After a Decade Of War”; Sundelius, The Committed Neutral; Möller and Bjereld, “From Nordic Neutrals To Post-Neutral Europeans”; Forsberg and Pesu, “The Role of Public Opinion in Finland’s Foreign and Security Policy”.
10. Sirén, State Agent, Identity; Hadar and Häkkinen, “Conscription and Willingness to Defend”.
11. Häkkinen, Rikkautta, humpuukia ja puolustuskykyä, 187–90.
12. Myyry, Käsityksiä maanpuolustustahdosta.
13. E.g. Kertzer et al., ”Moral Support”.
14. Ihalainen et al., “Parliament as a Conceptual Nexus”; Lock, ‘Refining Strategic Culture”; See Palonen, “Speaking pro et contra”.
15. Jerneck, Sannerstedt, and Sjölin, “Internationalization and Parliamentary Decision-Making”; Kallenautio, “Puolueettomuuspolitiikan linjalla kohti Euroopan Unionia,” 78–127.
16. Ihalainen and Matikainen, “The British Parliament”; Kaarkoski, “German and British Parliaments”.
17. Wiesner et al., Debates, Rhetoric and Political Action.
18. Kaarkoski, ”Korkea maanpuolustustahto turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikan,” 148–70.
19. For the Swedish case see Petersson, “Sweden and the Scandinavian”.
20. Rainio-Niemi, The Ideological Cold War.
21. Howlett and Glenn, “Epilogue: Nordic Strategic Culture”; Mouritzen, “The Nordic Model as A Foreign Policy Instrument”.
22. Agius and Devine, “’Neutrality: A Really Dead Concept?’,” 272; See also Agius, The Social Construction of Swedish.
23. Rainio-Niemi, The Ideological Cold War; Larsson, “Swedish Total Defence”; Hyvönen and Juntunen, “From “Spiritual Defence” to Robust”; Wither, “Back to The Future?”.
24. See note above 20.
25. Eddie, Swedish Foreign Policy, 36–8.
26. E.g. MSB Citation2018.
27. Körlof, ”Vad menar vi med försvarsvilja?,” 80–5.
28. Rossbach, Fighting Propaganda.
29. Kommittén för utredning om det psykologiska försvaret, Psykologiskt försvar
Betänkande, 9, 17.
30. Törnqvist, Försvarsvilja och närbesläktade begrepp.
31. Körlof, ”Mental beredskap,” 262–4.
32. Rossbach, Fighting Propaganda; Bertilsson, “The Swedish Defence Research Establishment”.
33. Åselius, “Swedish Strategic Culture”.
34. Cars et al., Svensk försvarspolitik under efterkrigstiden; Vårt framtida försvar.
35. Åselius, ”Swedish Strategic Culture,” 29–30; Riksdagen, Första kammarens protokoll 7 mars 1956, 34 (Ewerlög. K.G.); Andra kammarens protokoll 24 November 1959, 10 (Erlander); Andra kammaren protokoll 14 November 1961, 120 (Heckscher, G.); Första kammarens protokoll 26 April 1963, 7 (Kajser); Andra kammarens protokoll 17 maj 1967, 12 (Petersson); Andra kammarens protokoll 13 November 1968, 23 (Bohman); Andra kammarens protokoll 19 januari 1971, 36 (Bohman); Protokoll 9 maj 1974, 58–60 (Gustafsson i Uddevalla); Protokoll 30 januari 1980, 59 (Ullsten O.).
36. Sveriges regering, ”Nr. 74 Kungl. Maj.ts proposition,” 16–9.
37. Riksdagen, Andra kammarens protokoll 13 November 1968 (Bohman).
38. Riksdagen, Andra kammarens protokoll 19 April 1961 (Hjalmarson).
39. Sveriges regering, ”Regeringens proposition 1983/84:166,” 8–12.
40. Riksdagen, Protokoll 3 juni 1992 (Vestlund & Carnerö).
41. Kaarkoski and Häkkinen, ”The Legitimacy of Conscription in Democracy,” 203–5.
42. Riksdagen: Protokoll 11 oktober 1995, 159 (Peterson); Protokoll 6 December 1995, 83 (Peterson).
43. Riksdagen, Protokoll 25 November 1999, 1–3, 13 (Synow & Carnerö).
44. Riksdagen: Protokoll 6 December 1995, 83 (Peterson); Protokoll 25 November 1999, 1–3, 13 (Synow & Carnerö).
45. Riksdagen: Protokoll 29 November 2000, 28 (Carnerö); Protokoll 15 juni 2015.
46. E.g. Riksdagen, Protokoll 15 juni 2015.
47. Riksdagen: Protokoll 12 April 2018, 55, 60–1 (Bäckström & Olsson); Protokoll 2 maj 2018, 56–7 (Bäckström & Schröder); Protokoll 3 April 2019, 53 (Bäckström); Protokoll 18 mars 2020, 114 (Völker).
48. Försvarsdepartement, Värnkraft – Inriktningen av säkerhetspolitiken.
49. Pilke, “Vaaran vuosista arvostettuun asemaan,” 21–31; Häkkinen, Rikkautta, humpuukia ja puolustuskykyä, 105–8, 112–4.
50. E.g. Advisory Board for Defence Information, Finns’ Opinions on Foreign.
51. Henkisen maanpuolustuksen komitea, Henkisen maanpuolustuksemme perustekijät.
52. Rainio-Niemi, The Ideological Cold War, 2–3, 145–6; Häkkinen, ”Maanpuolustustahdon poliittisuus 1970-luvulta”; Häkkinen, Kaarkoski, and Tilli, ”Maanpuolustustahto ilmiönä, käsitteenä”.
53. E.g. Valtiopäivät: Valtiopäivät 1967. Pöytäkirjat II, 1563; Valtiopäivät 1970. Pöytäkirjat II, 1696 (Vennamo); Valtiopäivät 1978. Pöytäkirjat 3, 2273–6 (Lattula).
54. Häkkinen, ”Maanpuolustustahdon poliittisuus 1970-luvulta”; Puolustusministeriö, Maanpuolustuksemme tienviitat; Häkkinen, Rikkautta, humpuukia ja puolustuskykyä, 112–4.
55. E.g. Valtiopäivät, Valtiopäivät 1970. Pöytäkirjat II, 1715 (Sundqvist), 1783 (Laine).
56. Häkkinen, ”Maanpuolustustahdon poliittisuus 1970-luvulta”; Suomi, Pysähtyneisyyden vuodet, 269–74.
57. Ries, Cold Will.
58. Pesu, Koskiveneellä kohti valtavirtaa, 23–35; Ervasti and Laakso, Karhun naapurista Naton kainaloon; Visuri, Maailman muutos ja Suomi, 59–130.
59. Valtioneuvosto: Euroopan turvallisuuskehitys ja Suomen puolustus, 53; Suomen turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2001, Suomen turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2004, 97–100; Suomen turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2009, 79–105; Suomen turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikka 2012, 107; Valtioneuvoston puolustusselonteko 2017, 27.
60. Statistics Finland, “Willingness to defend the country”.
61. See e.g. Eduskunta: PTK 28/1997, 648 (Saari); PTK 87/2001 (Korkeaoja); PTK 97/2004, 79 (Lindqvist); PTK 6/2009, 4 (Vanhanen); PTK 73/2016 (Kulmala).
62. Tasavallan presidentti, ”Tasavallan presidentti Sauli Niinistön puhe 227”.
63. Häkkinen et al., ”Maanpuolustustahto ilmiönä, käsitteenä ja tutkimuskohteena”.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Teemu Häkkinen
Teemu Häkkinen completed his Ph.D. in general history in 2014 and has studied conceptual history, defence-policy decision-making, and the history of European integration, and is interested in connections between politics and armed conflict. He has published in journals such as Parliamentary History, European Review of History/revue européenne d histoire, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, Contributions to the History of Concepts, and Journal of Political and Military Sociology
Miina Kaarkoski
Miina Kaarkoski completed her Ph.D. in general history in 2016 and has studied conceptual history, environmental politics, defence policy and social media interaction. She is interested in the use of political language and concepts in these fields. Kaarkoski has published in journals such as Parliaments, Estates and Representation, Contributions to the History of Concepts and Business History.