Denmark’s strategic posturing on security and defence in the Indo-Pacific: Small state and cross-cultural perspectives

How can small states with an interest in maritime security develop a posture in the Indo-Pacific that is not only strategic, but also sustainable in the current security landscape? With recent anti-global tendencies and the (re)turn to geopolitics in foreign policy, the maritime domain plays a significant role in facilitating power projection. This is seen in the Indo-Pacific. Its constituent seas, the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean, are bordered by countries with economic, military and cultural importance, and the region’s maritime supply chains are vital for global trade. Yet the Indo-Pacific is experiencing increased hardening of threats and diversification of tension at sea. The high seas – as opposed to sovereign territories on land – are “neutral” spaces; they are international, belong to us all and are not the territory of any state. This makes it possible to create strong political, economic and cultural messaging to the world through violent means without infringing a state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – but with threats to the freedom of navigation enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1982).

A small state with an open economy, the freedom of navigation is particularly relevant to Denmark. It relies on maritime trade and places high value on maritime security in its foreign and security policy. Recently, Denmark has turned some attention to the Indo-Pacific. As it engages this theatre, several challenges emerge. Firstly, its small size and limited capacities which require its engagement to be prioritised. Secondly, growing geopolitical diversion of interests creating tensions and a decline of multilateralism.

To analyse this, the paper draws on International Relations scholarship on interventionism. This literature focuses on the frictions produced by interventions related to norms, sovereignty and power, which ultimately speaks to interventions’ legitimacy and effectiveness. It sensitises us to the concrete positions and contextual realities surrounding maritime governance on the ground and allows us to critically assess the pitfalls of how responses to tensions in the Indo-Pacific play out on the ground. This leads to discussions on how states can respond legally, politically and operationally. By way of conclusion, the paper suggests pathways of how to mitigate these pitfalls, arguing for the importance of inter-cultural dialogue across legal, political and operational dimensions of interventions.