Reykjavík Grapevine - 14.07.2006, Page 10

Negotiators from Iceland, the United States and NATO-
allied countries met on Friday, July 7 in the ninth round
of talks regarding the removal of the Iceland Defence
Force from the naval base in Keflavík. On the agenda
was a discussion of how the United States will meet its
commitment to the 1951 Defence Agreement, to ensure
some visible military presence in Iceland, the necessity
of which, while debatable, is a priority of current Prime
Minister Geir H. Haarde.
In a statement to the Alþingi in April, Haarde said,
“The atrocious threats and violence that we witnessed
following the publication of a series of cartoons in Jyl-
lands-Posten are confirmation of how easily a peaceful
democratic state can become the target of extremists. The
new world order teaches us, above all, that unpredictable
threats are widespread and that it is necessary for us to be
on our guard.”
Without any physical military presence on the island,
Iceland’s first line of defence against such threats is
hardly readily available, the protection guaranteed by its
NATO allies. Although supportive of Iceland’s position,
these allies seem equally unwilling or unable to maintain
a permanent presence on the island. In a press confer-
ence after a June 12 meeting with Haarde, Frank-Walter
Steinmeier, the Foreign Minister of Germany, said
that although “NATO has a certain joint responsibility
regarding Iceland,” he was not sure if that responsibility
entailed filling the gap that the US would leave.
Similarly, after meeting with French Foreign Min-
ister Philippe Douste-Blazy in late March, the PM told
reporters that Douste-Blazy had not offered assistance
regarding a visible defence force in Iceland. France’s best
offer, still being finalised, is to sell rescue helicopters
to Iceland to replace those likely to be removed by the
Americans in September.
“We’re Not a Feeble Nation”
The expansion of Icelandic defence capabilities may
therefore be the last option available for Iceland to com-
pensate for departing American forces. For a country that
has never had its own military and boasts a police force of
671 members, only a small portion of which carries guns,
this is a daunting task.
To some, Iceland’s move toward self-sufficiency
would be welcome news. MP Steingrímur J. Sigfússon,
although unreachable for comment at this time, went on
record in March claiming “A long and humiliating chap-
ter in our history is over. We’re not a feeble nation and we
can and should take responsibility for our own security.”
Progressive Party spokesperson Helga Sigrún
Harðardóttir told the Grapevine that they, “along with
the Independence Party, are working on several immedi-
ate activities that will replace some of the American ones:
rescue helicopters, new coast guard vessels and ideas for a
new organisation working on national security.”
Minister of Justice Björn Bjarnason, an active
leader in discussions on Icelandic security and defence,
has already spoken of his desire to establish a National
Security Division of the Icelandic Police. As reported in
Morgunblaðið on July 3, Bjarnason’s proposal was made
despite an evaluation by EU terrorism experts that the
risk of terrorist acts occurring in Iceland was not great.
He commented, “We want to take measures that all other
countries have taken to prevent damage, rather than wait
for something to happen.”
The question many are asking now is whether or
not something will actually happen. Deputy Supreme
Allied Commander Transformation Admiral Sir Mark
Stanhope told Fréttablaðið, “There is no need for military
forces in Iceland,” and that to his knowledge Iceland is
not under any specific threat from terrorism, let alone
invasions from other states. Perhaps in justification for
its intended withdrawal, the US position stands in sharp
contrast to that of the current Icelandic leadership.
Haarde, however, believes the threat is real and that
Iceland needs a visible deterrent to potential aggres-
sion. Reacting to the coming security vacuum, the PM
expressed his disappointment to the Alþingi saying, “It
cannot be denied that March 15 was an historic day, and
the unilateral decision by the United States while talks
were in progress was a great disappointment and a setback
for the defence co-operation.”
Without a doubt, the actions of the Bush government
have been less than honourable. The March 15 decision
to withdraw its forces from Keflavik was a breach of
Article VII of the bilateral Defence Agreement signed
in 1951, which states that either government’s intention
to modify the agreement or to reassess its necessity must
first be presented to the NATO Council for review, and
an understanding between both parties must be reached
before any action is taken.
Indeed, this process was followed twice during the
Clinton years, first in 1994 and again in 1996. On both
occasions, reductions in force were agreed upon, while
continuing the commitment of the United States to
maintain a visible military presence to guarantee Iceland’s
security.
The Bush government has effectively leap-frogged
that process, leading to negotiations in which the bottom
line is non-negotiable: US military personnel, along with
its F-15 fighter jets and helicopters, will leave the base for
good by September 30 of this year.
On the American side, there seems to be no genuine
interest in actual negotiation at all. While Iceland has
its prime minister and key cabinet members at the table,
the American team consists of representatives without
any apparent decision-making ability. Tom Hall, sitting
at the table for Icelandic negotiations, is described by the
Pentagon as the “principal staff assistant to the Under
Secretary of Defence for Personnel and Readiness.”
Hardly a counterpart to the prime minister of Iceland.
The US is out. NATO uninterested. If Iceland is
indeed serious about the threats it faces, then self-defence
may be the only option.
A Nation Defenceless
With the US ditching their agreement, and NATO unwilling to pick
up the slack, Iceland must decide how to guard and protect itself.
by greg bocquet photo by steinar hugi
reporting
“It cannot be denied that March 15 was a historic day, and the uni-
lateral decision by the United States while talks were in progress
was a great disappointment…” Geir H. Haarde.
ICELANDIC DESIGN
Skólavörðustígur 18
www.happysmil ingheadwear.com
T H E B L U E L A G O O N • E D E N • G E Y S I R • G U L L F O S S
R A M M A G E R D I N • T H E V I K I N G • Ú T I L Í F