The Nordics and COVID-19: Together or Apart?

As the corona virus spreads globally, we are witnessing a myriad of national responses to the crisis. The international community is trying to cope with a completely changed reality including closed national borders, curfews resembling wartime and unprecedented levels of unemployment amidst growing concern about the economic effects of the pandemic. Whilst still midstream in the corona outbreak, predicting the outcome on the global system is unrealistic at best, but we may learn something from comparing the different responses and actions taken in countries, that in many ways resemble one another, yet have pursued different strategies towards COVID-19.

The Nordic states take pride in seeing themselves as role models in the international system. They are small and smart, with strong welfare systems ranking at the top of global lists on transparency, socio-economic equality and rule of law. The Nordic Council, the oldest regional partnership in the world, is based on shared values and includes political, economic and cultural issues as well as security and defence issues through the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO). The aim of Nordic cooperation is to seek a “Nordic voice in the world” in areas where a Nordic approach generates added value for the countries and peoples of the region. Furthermore, the societal models shared by the Nordic countries are said to help make the region the most innovative and competitive in the world.

But has solidarity really come through amongst the Nordic states at these unprecedented times of the coronavirus? Or have national interests prevailed and the golden opportunity this crisis offered the Nordics of deeper cooperation been lost?

Three Nordic responses

The first case of COVID-19 was reported in Denmark on February 27. On March 13 the unprecedented announcement came from Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to close the Danish borders. Five days later Denmark went into a lockdown when department stores and restaurants closed their doors and a ban on public events with more than 10 persons was imposed. The first case was reported in Norway on February 26 and two weeks later, on March 12, the country went into a national lockdown followed by a travel ban and ultimately the shutting of borders a mere two weeks later. Finland had its first case at the end of January, with a Chinese traveller from the Wuhan district, but managed to contain the spread at the time by quarantine and contact tracing. A month later, on February 26, Finnish skiers returning from Italy and Austria brought the disease back to Finland. Finland declared a state of emergency on March 16, shut down schools and public facilities and closed down the national borders. At the same time, Finland made the news when medical gear was distributed to hospitals from a secret cold war stash. The same kind of preparedness used to be true of the other Nordic states as well, but the end of the cold war saw all but Finland decide to rely on the fast delivery of the free market for medical supplies.

Different approaches

Sweden, like Finland, had its first case with a traveller from Wuhan in January that was subsequently fully isolated upon detection. However, the first case of a Swede returning home contaminated was on February 26 and in the following days a number of new contaminations were reported. In spite of a similar timeline and a rapid rise in numbers of both infected and dead, the Swedish authorities have implemented far less restrictive measures than the other Nordic countries. Schools, shops, cafés and restaurants have remained open, albeit with restrictions. The Swedish constitution does not allow government to interfere with administrative authorities, leaving the decision-making in the hands of the public health agency. And although criticism has risen on the narrow measures taken in Sweden compared to its neighbours in Norway and Denmark, the state epidemiologist stands firm. In a fairly similar manner, although imposing stronger restrictions on the number of persons allowed to gather, the Icelandic government has based all decisions on measures to be taken to fight COVID-19 on scientific advice. The surgeon-general, the state epidemiologist and a commander in civil protection operations, keep the population informed in details, in daily press briefings that practically the whole nation watches.

Nordic efforts to combat the virus and its effect have been recognized widely in the media: Finland for its preparedness, Iceland for its massive testing and contact tracing, all the Nordic countries for their economic support packages, Denmark and Norway for recognizing the need for national leaders to speak directly to children about the situation and Sweden for trusting the population to do the right thing. All these efforts speak to the level of trust in the Nordic small societies that feel confident about making decisions based on science.

Nordic solidarity?

In a joint message from a conference call on March 17, the Nordic Foreign Ministers stressed regional solidarity. The message emphasized continuing to allow Nordic citizens to move freely through the Nordic countries’ respective airports and ensuring appropriate access to consular services of the other Nordic countries’ when needed. Here the key word is ´continuing´, as this kind of collaboration has existed for a long time among the Nordic states. Following the joint message all subsequent actions and measures have been on a national basis with no reference to Nordic solidarity. In fact, numerous media reports conduct comparisons showcasing the different approaches of the Nordic states leading to a divisive competition of who can claim to have gotten it right in the end. Drastic political decisions on closing borders could have been avoided and unified measures could possibly leave the Nordic states better equipped to deal with the unprecedented economic recession now upon us.

Lost opportunities?

Exploring all sides of the political decision-making during the pandemic is going to offer ample material for academic case studies for years to come. Looking at counterfactuals such as missed opportunities for regional and indeed global cooperation will certainly be a big part of that. Perhaps what we can all learn from this is that the likelihood of saving lives and safeguarding our lifestyles grows exponentially when we all come together.

Here the Nordics could have led by example through extensive regional cooperation. And although there is a lot of cooperation going on at other levels of governance amongst the Nordics, the tone set by the national leaders could have been unified based on scientific knowledge and free from populistic politics. So far, the tendency of all states, also the Nordic ones, has been to go national instead of regional or global in our responses to this crisis that knows no borders. This might sadly become one of the legacies of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, in every challenge there are also opportunities and they need to be explored. The high level of trust that exists within the Nordic countries and between them can be strengthened when facing such an enormous challenge if decisions are taken at a regional level instead of a national one. In such a scenario the Nordic countries could distribute responsibilities according to respective capacities in times of crisis. Pooling together in securing necessary medical equipment for the region, sharing best practices and consolidating efforts in testing, contact tracing and containment would not only be highly beneficial to all citizens of the Nordic region, but could also provide the international community with valuable findings on best practices for tackling the coronavirus.

At a time when the world order is being threatened, playing into the hands of authoritarians and populists all over the world, the Nordic region could deliver a strong political message stressing the importance of multilateralism and leading by empathy. From such an exercise in Nordic solidarity the region would be better equipped to deal with the next global crisis. In the end the Nordics remain proud of their reputation and although this time around they still have to practice what they preach, it is not too late to turn that around.

Pia Hansson is the director of the Institute of International Affairs, University of Iceland (on sabbatical leave) and guest researcher at DIIS