Why small states join big wars: the case of Sweden in Afghanistan 2002–2014
| Published date | 01 June 2017 |
| Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Author | Jan Ångström,Erik Noreen,Roxanna Sjöstedt |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117816651125 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816651125
International Relations
2017, Vol. 31(2) 145 –168
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117816651125
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Why small states join big
wars: the case of Sweden
in Afghanistan 2002–2014
Erik Noreen
Uppsala University
Roxanna Sjöstedt
Lund University
Jan Ångström
Swedish Defence University
Abstract
The security behavior of small states has traditionally been explained by different takes of realism,
liberalism, or constructivism – focusing on the behavior that aims toward safeguarding sovereignty
or engaging in peace policies. The issue of why states with limited military capacities and little
or no military alignments or engagements decide to participate in an international mission has
received limited attention by previous research. In contrast, this article argues that a three-
layered discursive model can make the choices of small states more precisely explained and
thereby contribute to an increased understanding of small states’ security behavior beyond threat
balancing and interdependence. Analyzing a deviant case of a non-aligned small state, this article
explains why Sweden became increasingly involved in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO)-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan. By focusing on
the domestic political discourses regarding the Swedish involvement in this mission, it is suggested
that a narrative shapes public perception of a particular policy and establishes interpretative
dominance of how a particular event should be understood. This dominant domestic discourse
makes a certain international behavior possible and even impossible to alter once established. In
the Swedish case, it is demonstrated that this discourse assumed a ‘catch-all’ ambition, satisfying
both domestic and international demands. In general terms, it should thus be emphasized that
certain discourses and narratives are required in order to make it possible for a country to
participate in a mission such as ISAF and prolong the mission for several years.
Corresponding author:
Erik Noreen, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 256, SE-751 05 Uppsala, Sweden.
Email: erik.noreen@pcr.uu.se
651125IRE0010.1177/0047117816651125International RelationsNoreen et al.
research-article2016
Article
146 International Relations 31(2)
Keywords
Afghanistan, international interventions, International Security Assistance Force, small states,
Sweden
Introduction
Why do small states join big wars? The ongoing armed conflict in Afghanistan is one
such war, characterized by its extensive international involvement. With the purpose of
enabling the Afghan government to provide effective security across the country, the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was set up by the UN in 2002. A gigantic
experiment of international security cooperation, ISAF, included 51 contributing states
and has been one of the largest multilateral operations in the world. However, ISAF, led
by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) since 2003, transformed over time to
become a warfighting mission against the Taliban. Surprisingly, one of the states that
participated in this mission was Sweden, which has often been defined by the literature
as a typical small state, in terms of population size, military might, and international
influence.1 It is thus far from self-evident why this small state decided to actively partici-
pate with armed forces in Afghanistan.2 By examining and explaining how and why
Sweden became increasingly involved in ISAF – suddenly being involved in regular
combat operations – this article can help to shed light on the processes and mechanisms
that affect small states’ motivations and willingness to participate in international mili-
tary interventions beyond their own national security sphere. We thereby wish to contrib-
ute to the literature on small states’ international behavior.
There is an extensive literature on ISAF in Afghanistan. A large part of this literature
has analyzed and criticized different aspects of the ISAF organization. In the few studies
focusing on small states within ISAF, no distinct pattern can be discerned concerning
their military engagement. Rather, we see that both among the smaller NATO members,
such as Norway and Denmark, and among the non-aligned or neutral small states, such
as Sweden, Austria, Ireland, and Finland, there was great variation in degree of involve-
ment, with some states committing large resources to the mission while others contrib-
uted to a lesser extent. The Swedish contribution is particularly puzzling. Already in
2002, Sweden took part in ISAF and assumed, seemingly without any major considera-
tion, responsibility for a so-called Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). Thereafter,
Sweden gradually increased its military as well as civilian efforts in Afghanistan. For a
militarily non-aligned country to commit relatively large resources to a NATO-led opera-
tion is an empirical anomaly and can be compared to other non-aligned or neutral coun-
tries that kept a low military profile in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, little is suggested theoretically that explain the Swedish engagement or
even why there was such variation in state commitment to this important multilateral mis-
sion. The broader field of small states’ security behavior has traditionally been explained
by different takes of realism, liberalism, or constructivism – focusing on the behavior that
aims toward safeguarding sovereignty or engaging in multilateral cooperation and peace
policies. This article qualifies these prior attempts and argues that discursive factors
should be highlighted, offering an approach that can make the choices of small states more
To continue reading
Request your trial