IDENTITY FACTORS IN THE MAKING OFBALTIC STATES’ FOREIGN POLICY COURSEIN 1991–2014

A. Valodzkin
{"title":"IDENTITY FACTORS IN THE MAKING OFBALTIC STATES’ FOREIGN POLICY COURSEIN 1991–2014","authors":"A. Valodzkin","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2021.20.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Foreign policies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in post-Soviet decades have been prominent for their continuity and consistency. Since identity is usually considered as one of the major factors of consistency and continuity of politics, the goal was set to examine the role of different identity factors in formation of foreign policies of the three Baltic states in the period from international recognition of their independence in August 1991 to the Ukrainian Crisis of spring 2014 in European politics. The analysis of literature and sources suggests some assumptions on how identity-related factors influenced foreign policies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, They could be summarized in a hypothesis that making of the Baltic foreign policies was deeply influenced by “ethnocratic” nature of political regimes, establishedin Baltic states, ideological constructs based on their historical memories and memory politics as well as geopolitical identities of being “small states” and being influenced by the “Baltic unity” idea. Examining of these assumptions allows to conclude that effects of some identity factors, like ethnic identities, are often overestimated, while others really played very important, sometimes decisive, role in developments of major foreign policy vectors of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.The deterioration of their relations with Russia in the period under review was largelydetermined by ideological constructs of legal state continuity and Soviet occupation deeply rooted in the XX century historical memories of Baltic states. While Western vectors of their foreign policies and first of all their relations with the USA developed in line with the logic of securitization based on self-perception of Baltic political elites of being “small states”.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Historical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2021.20.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Foreign policies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in post-Soviet decades have been prominent for their continuity and consistency. Since identity is usually considered as one of the major factors of consistency and continuity of politics, the goal was set to examine the role of different identity factors in formation of foreign policies of the three Baltic states in the period from international recognition of their independence in August 1991 to the Ukrainian Crisis of spring 2014 in European politics. The analysis of literature and sources suggests some assumptions on how identity-related factors influenced foreign policies of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, They could be summarized in a hypothesis that making of the Baltic foreign policies was deeply influenced by “ethnocratic” nature of political regimes, establishedin Baltic states, ideological constructs based on their historical memories and memory politics as well as geopolitical identities of being “small states” and being influenced by the “Baltic unity” idea. Examining of these assumptions allows to conclude that effects of some identity factors, like ethnic identities, are often overestimated, while others really played very important, sometimes decisive, role in developments of major foreign policy vectors of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.The deterioration of their relations with Russia in the period under review was largelydetermined by ideological constructs of legal state continuity and Soviet occupation deeply rooted in the XX century historical memories of Baltic states. While Western vectors of their foreign policies and first of all their relations with the USA developed in line with the logic of securitization based on self-perception of Baltic political elites of being “small states”.
1991-2014年波罗的海国家外交政策制定中的身份因素
爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚和立陶宛在苏联解体后几十年的外交政策以其连续性和一致性而突出。由于认同通常被认为是政治一致性和连续性的主要因素之一,因此本研究的目标是考察从1991年8月国际社会承认波罗的海三国独立到2014年春季乌克兰危机期间,波罗的海三国外交政策形成过程中不同认同因素的作用。对文献和资料的分析提出了一些关于身份相关因素如何影响爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚和立陶宛的外交政策的假设,这些假设可以概括为一个假设,即波罗的海国家建立的政治制度的"民族"性质深深影响了波罗的海外交政策的制定。基于历史记忆和记忆政治的意识形态建构,以及“小国”的地缘政治认同和受“波罗的海统一”理念的影响。对这些假设进行审查后可以得出结论,某些身份因素,如种族身份的影响往往被高估,而其他因素在爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚和立陶宛主要外交政策的发展中确实发挥了非常重要的作用,有时甚至是决定性的作用。在本报告所述期间,它们与俄罗斯关系的恶化在很大程度上是由法治国家连续性的意识形态构建和深深植根于波罗的海国家20世纪历史记忆的苏联占领所决定的。而西方的外交政策载体,首先是他们与美国的关系,是根据波罗的海政治精英作为“小国”的自我认知的证券化逻辑发展起来的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信