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.
