The general theme of this MA Thesis is how a minor foreign policy issue was handled in the 1960 s. Foreign policy is a wide concept, and politicians and bureaucrats concerned in this field have a large variety in questions to deal with. One of the more peripheral of them is whether or not a state should attend World Expositions. Even though it is a minor part of a large field, it is of interest to study the process of bureaucrats and representatives of private sectors making foreign policy decisions on behalf of a state. This Master s thesis is concerned with this theme using an example of how and why the Nordic countries cooperated on decisions leading to a joint pavilion at Expo 70 in Osaka. To show this, I have chosen four main topics that are relevant in this respect. The first one is what World Expositions are, who participates at these, and for what reasons. The fears of reprisals are also dealt with, and the question of how real they were. The second topic is how decisions are made in foreign policy bureaucracies. The patterns may not be entirely representative, but are sufficiently so as political interests and bureaucratic patterns emerge. The third topic is questions concerns Swedish, Norwegian and Danish cooperation and conflicts, a Norwegian distrust of the Swedes, and the answer by the Swedes being somewhat amused by the Norwegian antipathies. The fourth topic regards how the decision makers handle culture differences, and how this affects foreign policy decisions. The thesis argues that Nordic cooperation is possible when it is in the national interest of each of the countries to cooperate. When cooperation on the joint pavilion at Expo 70 was started, it was in the national interest to continue and complete even though it was not in the national interest of Norway to present the country in the way Sweden wanted. Thus, Norway was not satisfied with cooperating especially with the Swedes on World Exhibitions, and there have never been joint Nordic pavilions again.