Norway-Sweden Disunion:

externalizes the process using the pendulum policy as not to antagonize that which could retaliate against the security of the state. Furthermore, the very success of this movement that started in the early nineteenth century has stayed Sweden’s hand as it has not started nor engaged in any war following this transformation.

lasting fourteen days after the ensuing opening session in parliament.³⁵⁵ Furthermore, Swedish blockades were lifted along the coast and neither Swedish nor Norwegian troops could be closer than three miles to Christiania, the capital. Norwegian volunteers were disbanded and sent home. These measures along with accepting a slightly amended Norwegian constitution, saw the Norwegian parliament vote in favor of the union.

Sweden, having thus secured Norway in exchange for the loss of Finland, continues with the new policy to secure its position through neutrality. By skillfully using its foreign service, Sweden deviates from what has previously been the norm, namely relying on projecting military might in the international system. This newfound neutrality and change in the perception of self towards nonbelligerency, would prove opportune for Norway a century later. As the personal union signifies, the countries within the union are independent of each other, with clear borders, governed by distinct laws, and interests under a common monarch. Yet, as discussed above, there would be issues that in the end became irreconcilable primarily for Norway, as Sweden did not treat Norway as an equal partner. It ended with the secession of Norway from the union in 1905 within which the principles of nationality, parliamentarianism, self-determination, plebiscite, and demilitarization would play a role.

By 1905, the union was heading for dissolution: the ensuing crisis over Norway establishing its own consular service was what ultimately brought about the union’s demise. Up to this point, Sweden had made attempts at simultaneously protect the territorial integrity of the Union, while bringing the union closer by attempts at weakening the Norwegian constitutions. The unilateral Norwegian act would bring the Union to its end. Oscar II, the head of the union, stated: “rather dissolution of the union than war with Norway.

Rather keep the Swedish Throne with honor, than lose the double-monarchy in shame.” The Swedish state, which has undergone a transformation to neutrality, nonalignment, and restraint, now sees the culmination of this effort

355 Lindgren, Norway-Sweden: Union, Disunion, and Scandinavian Integration. 14

by not only granting Norway its independence, but by deferring to the will of the Norwegian people and ultimately accepting and respecting it. Sweden gave only two demands: 1) dissolution by plebiscite (with clear majority for dissolution) and 2) that there would be negotiations over the intricacies of the dissolution. The Swedish demand for a plebiscite was not unreasonable in the least as there was no valid legal framework for the Norway’s case for dissolution.³⁵⁶ The dissolution would be implemented upon the resulting plebiscite. The principle of self-determination was a fundament within Swedish principle of neutrality, and consequently the very nature of the union by extension. Sweden would not engage in another country’s internal matters—

and Norway being within the personal union just that: another country—as other countries concurrently should respect Sweden’s internal affairs. This policy as a guiding principle for Sweden, was thus reflected in the statement of dissolving the union with keeping Swedish honor intact, rather than facing war with Norway. The subsequent result was overwhelmingly in favor of ending the union. Norway had been developing its democracy since 1814 and been under parliamentarianism longer than Sweden,³⁵⁷ and therefore also dominated by liberally oriented policies. The Swedish were more conservative, authoritarian and the king enjoyed greater discretionary powers;

356 The Norwegian constitution does not contain the words plebiscite or

referendum. Of those that have been held in the country, all have been legally non-binding and have only served as an advisory function for the parliament. Of the plebiscites Norway has had apart from the dissolution of the union with Sweden, three notable ones stand out in direct relation to the principle of Norwegian nationality and the dissolution of the union with Sweden. After the dissolution, the plebiscite to elect the new king in 1905 and two on entering the EU. Both times, in 1972 and in 1994, Norway voted to stay out of the EU. (The latest poll, June 2016, has 70.9 percent being against EU membership. Frida Holsten Gullestad, "Norges Nei Står Sterkt / Norway's No Stands Strong,"

Klassekampen, 2016, accessed 07/08/2016.). The Swedish constitution on the other hand allows for binding referendums. Though, to date, Sweden has held six non-binding referendums and none that were legally binding.

357 Since 1884. The Government of Norway, Norwegian Government Periods 1814 - 1884 (The Government, 2011).

parliamentarianism would not be fully implemented in Sweden until 1921.³⁵⁸ Norway and Sweden had therefore been politically growing apart. What occurred in Norway in 1814 set in motion a movement towards liberal ideas, and under a later national movement, would prove incompatible with conservative Sweden: still, it did not impede the Swedish king to respect the self-determination of the Norwegian people.

The principle of democracy, enacted within a growing liberal parliamentary system, and through its application of plebiscite would see Norway secede from a larger military power that had embraced restraints on the use of force in solving disputes and that would ultimately be true in its dependability as such: a self-declared neutral power in its solicitation for a regional peace. In 1905, the application of a plebiscite for such a purpose was a novel action. It was, according to Matt Qvortrup, likely the most significant plebiscite to take place before the First World War:

The most celebrated referendum to be held before the First World War was perhaps the 1905 poll in Norway when Norway’s parliament Stortinget in 1905 sent notification to Sweden that Norway seceded from the union established in 1814. The response was initially negative. The Swedish Riksdag responded that the union was two-sided, and that in strict legal terms, the union cannot be dissolved without consent of the King and the Riksdag. Yet, the Swedes conceded that the request would be accepted if it was proceeded by “a fairly conduced plebiscite”³⁵⁹

He continues to argue that Sweden did not expect that the prime minister of Norway would have virtù in organizing a “fairly conducted plebiscite,” and upon receiving the resounding result almost immediately entered amicably held negotiations in Karlstad. Furthermore, Qvortrup points out that as the

“Swedes were not an aspiring power, and that the relationship with Norway

358 The Swedish Parliament, The History of the Riksdag (The Parliament, n.d.).

359 Qvortrup, Nationalism, Referendums and Democracy: Voting on Ethnic Issues and Independence. 143

was not economically or politically beneficial to Stockholm.” ³⁶⁰ Thus, Sweden, pragmatically as well, accepted a bilateral solution with Norway. This solution was accomplished without the need of involving the great powers in gaining their support for keeping Norway, as had been originally agreed upon in 1814.

Thus, of the secession referendums held, the one involving Norway departing Sweden would stand out as it did not occur inside the sphere of a violent conflict, and that the Swedes acted amicably to Norway: Apart from the two conditions set, Norway was not made to pay any compensation or have any further undue conditions set post-union exit.

What then follows naturally upon respecting the Norwegian plebiscite is the negotiations for the future relationship between Norway and Sweden. From this negotiation, what stands out is the demand for a demilitarized border between the now two fully independent countries: in other words, a reasonable demand from a neutral power. In the demilitarization process, the fortresses along the border were destroyed so that the territorial border area between Norway and Sweden could not be used as a deployment area for troops in case of conflict. The neutrality of Sweden would therefore prove to be successful in taking a likely war that would have required some form of conflict transformation and instead employed a peaceful transformation that turned the conflict into a non-conflict.³⁶¹ This does not disregard the tension both in Norway and Sweden with a real threat of war. The peaceful dissolution of the union of Norway and Sweden belongs to the exceptions, as it is more often the case that when a member of a union secedes, it results in war.

Nevertheless, the focus here is on the principles behind the peaceful solutions that make the pillars of the Nordic Peace.

360 Ibid. 143

361 Armitage, David, Secession and Civil War in “Part 1. The Problem of Secession” in D.H. Doyle, Secession as an International Phenomenon: From America's Civil War to Contemporary Separatist Movements (University of Georgia Press, 2010).

Prior to the Peace of Kiel in 1814, Sweden built alliances and partook in the European wars to secure its position and influence. Post-1814, Sweden changes itself through a developing self-interest to continue to protect its position and influence.³⁶² Through its actions, Sweden established itself as a reliable, stable, and a neutral power with integrity. The Swedish neutrality is based in tradition, as opposed to an international treaty, which further strengthens it. Having it based in choice, and staying true to it, Sweden by relinquishing Norway in 1905, was able to continue this development. Later still, with the independence of Finland from Russia in 1918, Sweden sees a strengthening of its position, and by extension the Nordic Region as a whole as Finland chooses neutrality as well.³⁶³

The great powers in Europe also were furthermore supportive of the dissolution of the union in 1905, as opposed to their position in 1814 when they guaranteed Sweden’s annexation of Norway. Norway was therefore able to sign into treaty with France, Germany, Great Britain, and Russia an agreement guaranteeing Norway’s territorial integrity in 1907.³⁶⁴ When the

362 Sweden is still of strategic importance and thus influential in the ensuing wars on the European continent.

363 This still holds true today in spite of talks of joining NATO having appeared.

While the fearmongering that appeared in the aftermath of the Russian

annexation of Crimea did not shift Sweden, it is increasingly becoming aligned towards the West. "What Price Neutrality? Russia Stokes Fresh Debate among the Nordics About Nato Membership," Economist, 2014, accessed 11/07/2016.

See also: Atlantic Council, Sweden Ratifies Nato Cooperation Agreement (2016).

364 The Norwegian push for a treaty guaranteeing its independence, integrity, and neutrality in 1907 developed into a crisis in itself. Considering the strategic

importance of the Nordic countries, the great powers, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia were considering the impact of a neutral Norway in case of future wars. “The question of neutral rights in wartime was the subject of intense international debate in the years before the First World War.” Ultimately, Norway got a treaty to secure its integrity, but not guarantees for its neutrality. Salmon, Scandinavia and the Great Powers 1890-1940. 114. See also: Salmon,

"'Between the Sea Power and the Land Power': Scandinavia and the Coming of the First World War." Norwegian—as well as Danish—neutrality lasted until the Second World War. After which Denmark, Iceland, and Norway were amongst

crises of the union developed to the point of dissolution, Norway and Sweden was not in any way in a unique position. What makes this dissolution an exception is that not only was it a peaceful resolution to a potential war, it is also a peaceful transformation to a non-war. The result is thus presented with a unilateral declaration of secession accepted bilaterally, and furthermore accepted with bilateral negotiations for dissolution of the union. Soon after the dissolution, relations with Sweden normalized for Norway with the resumption of trade, and the countries would retain a kinship as siblings; with Sweden as a benign big-brother capable of showing great restraint in times of crises.