Nordic Problems Need Nordic Tools

At the Nordic Welfare Forum 2025: Nordic Trust in a Changing World, Professor Anna Rotkirch opened her presentation on demographics by airing out some frustration. Fertility rates are collapsing across all Nordic countries at similar speed. We have similar family policies, similar cultures and similar solutions we could employ. The researchers, she continued, are well connected and form a Nordic ecosystem of population experts. 

Yet each country acts alone. 

Each government issues its own demographic report, without even considering the parallel reports from its Nordic neighbours. Each government responds with its own national strategy as if the problem was unique to them. The knowledge exists, the networks exist, the problems are shared — but the policies remain stubbornly national.

This is a pattern in Nordic cooperation. Whether the issue is demographics, migration, climate adaptation, or regional security, we face shared challenges but often default to national fixes.

Of course, not everything can be solved together. Some issues are best handled locally, some nationally, and some at the international level through the EU or the UN. But in between lies the regional level: the Nordic level. Here we already have the institutional framework, the shared culture, and the trust required. Yet we rarely use it. Often it’s not even part of our political imagination. 

Recently, a prominent Finnish politician offered another example of this pattern. Finland’s start-up ecosystem is vibrant, producing a steady stream of promising companies. But when these firms need growth capital, they leave for the US or Asia. To address this, he proposed a national €2 billion mega-fund.

Great. But, again, this is not a Finnish problem alone. It is a Nordic problem. Our inability to pool or attract capital for growth-stage companies is shared. Why not build a Nordic solution – a Nordic megafund, a fund-of-funds, or a new mandate for the Nordic Investment Bank? 

Why build five small dams against the flood, when one joined barrier would actually hold, and hold stronger?

As the Helsinki Treaty, the “Nordic Constitution", is now under revision – for the first time in 30 years – the lesson is clear: we must recognise Nordic problems as Nordic problems, and give ourselves the tools, starting with the treaty, to respond together.

We see these Nordic problems most clearly in three strategic areas of foreign policy, security, and economic coordination — as well as the foundational area of societal trust.

In each of these, the limits of acting alone are becoming harder to ignore. In each, the groundwork for cooperation already exists but remains underused. And in each, the costs of delay are rising.

First: Foreign policy.

We are living through a hinge moment in global politics. The next decade may determine whether the world reaffirms a rules-based multilateral order or slides into a more fractured, transactional system of great-power rivalry.

Across long-standing alliances – in Europe, in the transatlantic space – cracks are widening. But Norden remains united. We still believe in diplomacy, in international law, in development, in climate responsibility, and in human rights. Increasingly, these are values spoken of in a louder and more cynical world.

We are, in many ways, in the same boat. And in these waters, it is better to be in the same boat – one that is larger, more stable, and harder to ignore.

This is not only about values. It’s also about visibility. A clearer Nordic foreign policy presence could strengthen our role in the world — as a region capable of shaping norms, building peace, attracting global talent, and projecting stability in uncertain times. Shared diplomatic strategies, cultural cooperation, and coordinated development work could lay the foundation for a more intentional Nordic soft power strategy.

We are not starting from zero. The Helsinki Treaty already encourages consultation in foreign affairs. In practice, however, this rarely rises above symbolic coordination. The current revision process is an opportunity to ask: what could Nordic foreign policy mean today and tomorrow? 

Part of the answer lies in the map – Geography, they often say, is destiny. The Arctic is no longer a remote frontier but a geopolitical pressure point where global powers converge. As Arctic states, we may differ in emphasis across our national strategies, but the fundamentals are shared: we all want stability, open and secure trade routes, and respect for sovereignty in a region increasingly shaped by competition.

On a broader level, the answer lies in recognising our shared Nordic problems. We all need to attract global talent. We all need to future-proof our economies. We all need to project stability and credibility in a more uncertain world. None of these challenges stop at the border. They are Nordic challenges – and they demand Nordic responses.

Second: Defence and civil security.

All Nordic countries are now members of NATO. This is a historic shift. But the Helsinki Treaty still speaks the language of peacekeeping and Cold War neutrality. The reality has changed and the treaty should reflect it.

From our Finnish perspective, it is encouraging to see our whole Nordic family now recognising the imperialist tendencies of our neighbour to the east. It is equally encouraging to see progress through NORDEFCO, where the vision is to integrate our forces so closely that we can conduct joint operations if needed. The Nordic Council’s own working group has already proposed that defence cooperation should be written into the treaty – a proposal we strongly support.

At the level of the treaty, we do not need to duplicate NORDEFCO. But we do need to give it recognition and durability, so that progress is not left to the whims of political turnover. With modest steps; more joint procurement, the development of complementary capabilities, a shared total defence strategy, even exploring joint financing or shared bases in strategically important locations such as Gotland, Nordic defence cooperation can be anchored for the long term.

A shared geography means shared exposure. We should prepare accordingly.

Third: Economic coordination.

The Nordics pride themselves on innovation. We are often described as a “unicorn factory,” producing more billion-euro startups per capita than almost anywhere else in the world. Cross-border projects such as Medicon Valley — now accounting for nearly 20% of the GDP of Denmark and Sweden — show what can be achieved when Nordic strengths are aligned.

And yet, we remain five small markets, five investment systems, and five industrial strategies often moving in parallel rather than together. Our most promising firms still leave for the United States or Asia when they need growth capital. We missed the platform wave, we missed the semiconductor boom — and unless we act together, we risk missing the next wave as well.

We do not need to harmonise everything. But we could do much more to align capital, strategy, and infrastructure. The Nordic Investment Bank could be given a stronger mandate. A joint innovation fund could provide patient capital for scale-ups too large for national tools, but not yet ready for global markets. Shared standards and permitting processes could accelerate the green transition and give Nordic firms first-mover advantage in setting global norms.

We already think together. We could also invest together. With a common economic strategy, the Nordics could identify and build up strategic industrial clusters — in life sciences, green energy, creative industries, quantum technology, even dual-use defence technologies. Here, pooled resources and long-term coordination could position Norden not as a follower, but as a leader.

We have the talent, the trust, and the stability to lead. What we lack is alignment. Shared infrastructure and common instruments would not diminish national control. They would multiply our capacity.

The treaty already contains provisions on economic cooperation. But the language mirrors the logic of 1960s cooperation – modest, intergovernmental, and reactive. The Nordics are framed as friendly trading partners, not as a strategically integrated economic bloc. In the current revision process no updates have been proposed. This is a missed opportunity.

We have specific suggestions for how the economic articles could be modernised, but these are outside the scope of this piece. For now, the point is simple: if the Nordics are to remain competitive, the framework for our economic cooperation must be as ambitious as the future we want for tomorrow

Societal Trust

For all the talk of strategy, security, and markets, we should not lose sight of the foundation upon which it all rests: Nordic trust.

Trust – in institutions, between citizens, across generations – is what makes our Nordic Model work. It keeps our economies competitive, and our democracies resilient. It is what researchers at the Nordic Welfare Forum called Nordic gold. And it is under pressure: from privatisation, disinformation, polarisation, and inequality.

In our manifesto we have stated that protecting, cultivating, and renewing Nordic trust is our first philosophy and our last. We have argued that, together, the Nordics will be in a much stronger position to sustain this Nordic gold in the long haul.  

We believe the Helsinki Treaty should clearly enshrine the region’s shared commitment to societal trust. 

Final thoughts

We understand that our wishlist is long, and that many of these proposals will not be feasible in this round of revisions. If there is one single step we would like to see, however, it is this: a clause ensuring that the treaty itself is reviewed regularly.

It should guarantee that our cooperation remains adaptable. After all, the Nordic problems of today will not be the Nordic problems of tomorrow.

We therefore propose a simple mechanism: that the treaty be reviewed at regular intervals — every five years — by a standing working group mandated to recommend revisions. This would ensure that Nordic cooperation remains a living framework, responsive to change, rather than a symbolic monument to our friendship.

And as we stand at the brink of a new geopolitical era – whether the rules-based, multilateral order can be revived, or whether the world drifts into a multipolar, transactional order – time will tell. But one thing is clear: the treaty must never again be left untouched for 30 years.

A full policy brief will follow shortly — outlining concrete proposals for treaty reform, institutional upgrades, and strategic cooperation across the Nordic region. Sign up to our newsletter to receive it directly.

Holding the Centre: Why the Nordics Should Unite Behind Peace Mediation

By Ali Sadeghi & Dan Smith

As war scars the European continent again and great power rivalries intensify, the five Nordic countries—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden—find themselves at a crossroads. Their combined reputation for trust, stability, and diplomacy is more than a regional curiosity; it is in fact a strategic asset the world urgently needs. In an era when security discussions are dominated by military alliances and deterrence, it is time for the Nordics to double down on the quality that most distinguishes them: their ability to build bridges, mediate conflict, and hold the political center when others polarise.

Nordic states have long stood out as global mediators. From the Oslo Accords to the facilitation of peace processes in Colombia, Sudan, and Sri Lanka, the region has quietly contributed to some of the world’s most significant diplomatic breakthroughs. This soft power, built on a foundation of domestic trust, moderate politics, and strong internationalist values, offers a critical counterweight to the rising tide of confrontation.

At a moment when international institutions are under strain and the risk of escalation in Europe is rising, as such, there is a strong case for the Nordics to raise their mediation game. What would that mean?

Mediation works best when the effort is, for want of a better term, fragmented. Sometimes the main mediating role must be played by one, two or more governments; at other times, other actors are better placed—civil society organisations, research centres, university departments. In their diversity lies strength. And the fact that none of them depends on mediation means they can use the one power that the mediator has: they can walk away if the negotiation is going nowhere because, while they have a moral drive to promote peace, there is no institutional self-interest in keeping the talks going, no payroll to finance.

But diverse actors and actions do need financing to support their efforts—sustainable, reliable and above all adaptable funding. The time has come to create a unified, institutionalised mechanism to support Nordic peace mediation—one that would allow the region to project its values and expertise far more effectively.

This landscape of independent, actor-diverse initiatives reflects something familiar in the Nordic context itself. The region’s societies have long trusted decentralisation—not as a problem to fix, but as a quiet strength to build on.

Fortunately, an opportunity for real progress is at hand. The Helsinki Treaty, which since 1962 has been the backbone of Nordic cooperation, is currently under active revision by member governments. Most attention has focused on questions of security and defence, but the Treaty’s renewal is also a chance to formalise the Nordics’ leadership in peace mediation. Including a dedicated clause in the revised Treaty would not only institutionalise this shared imperative, but also send a clear signal to Europe and the world that the Nordics intend to lead as bridge-builders, not just fall in line as military allies.

A shared funding and support platform could enhance existing national strengths—Finland’s experience in Track II diplomacy, Sweden’s expertise in gender and peace processes, Norway’s long-standing mediation networks, etc. It would amplify credibility and impact, helping agile Nordic actors step in where larger institutions are hamstrung by politics.

If ever there was a moment for the Nordics to put their reputation for moderation and bridge-building at the centre of their shared future, it is now. Policymakers should ensure that the revised Helsinki Treaty enshrines support for Nordic peace mediation efforts—because in a fragmenting world, the Nordics’ ability to hold the centre could matter more than ever.