Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.2002, Page 55

TÝDNINGURIN AV TVØRTJOÐA SAMSTARVI í NORÐURATLANTSØKINUM
53
must also be considered). It can also be
stated that this dilemma has been brought
about through the division of responsibility
within the political system between foreign
policies, where governments hold power,
and domestic policies including municipal,
industrial and labour affairs, which are
more in the control of parlianrents. As do-
mestic policies are increasingly governed
by international organisations such as the
EU, this division of responsibility is a bar-
rier to national participation in transnation-
al development (see also Lindstrðm, 1996).
The new forms of transnational regional
cooperation involve highly differentiated
participants, but until now cooperation ini-
tiatives have typically been pursued with-
out any network of communication be-
tween the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and
the specific Ministries of the Interior, nor
between the EU and the Nordic Council of
Ministers (cf. iig., Aalbu et.al., 1995: 89).
Foreign Affairs/EU issues and Internal Af-
fairs/Nordic cooperation belong in two sep-
arate domains.
Nordic cooperation between regions de-
pendent on fisheries necessarily involves
several organisational bodies, but the exist-
ing Nordic institutions are weak structures
only constructed for the purpose of con-
ducting ‘low political’ cooperation. The
strength of these weak institulions and net-
works is clearly their absence of bureaucra-
cy of the type and scale found in the much
more formalised institutions of the EU. But
weak Nordic institutions limited to the con-
cerns of ‘low politics’ will not be able to
pursue rnajor transnational projects such as
the BEAR and NORA initatives, which in-
volve the Nordic Atlantic countries and
perhaps eventually Scotland and New-
foundland as well.
As in the case of the BEAR, Nordic co-
operation is not able to take initiatives of in-
ternational scope, but when established as a
framework by energetic national govern-
ments within an EU context, Nordic coop-
eration can enter later, supporting and fund-
ing projects, in a subordinate role. In 1996
Sweden and Finland entered the EU, and
the EU entered the North Calotte and the
BEAR initiatives with substantial INTER-
REG programmes. Although using the
names of North Calotte and Barents, it is
clear that new Euro-political structures
have been introduced.
Ackowledgement
This article is a revised and updated version of: Jørgen
Ole Bærenholdt, 1995: New Forms ofRegional Cooper-
ation in a “Europe of Regions”? - the Barents Region
versus the West Nordic Cooperation, in: Sámal T.F. Jo-
hansen (red.): Nordiske fiskersamfund i fremtiden -
vol.2: Smá samfund under europæisk integration, Te-
maNord 1995:586, Nordic Council of Ministers, pp.
231-253. In this version the developments in fisheries
and regional cooperation in the Barents Region up to
1996, the establishment of the Nordic Atlantic Commit-
tee and the development of Nordic Cooperation after the
Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish referenda on EU
membership have been taken into consideration. I want
to thank associate professor Peter Arbo, University of
Tromsø, for his constructive comments.