Who should be members? Today Norden is the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and the three autonomous territories (the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland). Geographically it is the Scandinavian Peninsula, Denmark and Finland attached to the European mainland and four island communities of varying size. Greenland, the largest, is almost 2.2 million km2, which can be compared to the roughly 1.3 million km2 of the five Nordic countries together.
In between the landmasses there is a lot of ocean with seabed below. Since the Loophole-settlement between Russia and Norway earlier this year, seabed ownership is no longer such a divisive subject though potential areas of dispute undoubtedly remain, for instance over the Loop-sea.
It could however be argued that such issues do not really present realistic obstacles to a United Nordic Federation. Conflict over land and sea areas has until relatively recently been a part of the history of Norden, as in most other parts of the word. In fact some would argue that in a previous historical era parts of Northern Germany and what are now the Baltic States were once within the sphere of Norden.
Wetterberg's key argument is that the time is politically ripe for Federation. He puts it like this:
"Geography is economics, and it is in the hands of politics. From the founding of Switzerland, to the liberation of the Netherlands, to Italian unity, German reunification and the fall of the Soviet Union, political geography has, time and again, been redrawn and left its marks on the passage of history."
And he continues: "Now, the Nordic Region has just such an opportunity to shape the future of its people, companies and culture. This opportunity is the most important issue facing the countries' politicians. If they decide to grasp it, then the United Nordic Federation will have every chance of transforming the Region into an entity capable of offering its citizens far more than the individual countries ever could."
During the Cold War the security and foreign policies of the Nordic countries and territories were predominantly directed by how the interests of the Soviet Union and the United States of America were perceived. The superpowers ruled and the rest of the world followed.
In 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed. Many would argue that the USA is in a process of losing its global dominance. Their war against terrorism is not about territory. Furthermore, NATO is preparing to unite with Russia to build a new rocket-shield. They do not say against whom, but it is not difficult to guess that potential enemies include countries such as Iran, North Korea and perhaps China.
In other words, as long as Norden goes along with this new conflict scenario, global politics will not create difficulties in building the Federation. This hypothesis has indeed been borne out thus far. The Nordic Prime Ministers initiative some three years ago to investigate the possibilities of increased military and security cooperation in Norden (The Thorvald Stoltenberg Report) was not met by protests - from either the East or the West.
The United Nordic Federation would have 25 million citizens and a GDP of approximately $1 600 billion – about the same as Spain and Canada – making it one of the world's 10–12 biggest economies. This economic strength seems, for Gunnar Wetterberg, to be the most important argument for the Federation. In particular, he underlines that the federation could give the Nordic countries a real role in the G20.
Denmark, Finland and Sweden are member of the European Union. Iceland is likely to join within a couple of years. Norway may continue to stay out. But as long as it continues to adjust to the requirements of economic cooperation and the border-controls of the Schengen-agreement - and is a major supplier of oil, gas and fish - the implications of non-membership are of little practical importance. Therefore, the EU does not have to be a hindrance to a potential Federation.
Thus far the initiative, seemingly supported by the Nordic Council of Ministers, has been reported in all the main media outlets across the Nordic countries. Majorities in each country seem to be generally favourable if not all that interested. It is likely the debate will rumble on. Wetterberg suggests that the Federation could elect its first legislative assembly by 2030.
To this writer that date seems far too distant. If we are really to use the current political climate to our advantage why not go for 2020?
By indicating a ten year perspective for the process it might be possible to create some real debate and engagement. This would also signal a clearer indication of the real viability of the idea of a new United Nordic Federation.