Reykjavík Grapevine - 07.04.2006, Blaðsíða 17

to public debate.
“It has been the government’s strategy in this matter
as well as others to separate intrinsically linked issues
and deny parliament, and the nation as a whole, the
right to see the big picture,” said Halldórsdóttir.
She added that her party had only wanted to re-ex-
amine the water laws in conjunction with an anticipated
future debate surrounding two upcoming bills on water
purity standards and natural resource management.
“You can’t separate these three issues,” she said.
Also claiming to look at the bigger picture, Social
Democrat Össur Skarphéðinsson told the Grapevine
that the new bill was simply about one aspect of what he
called the central issue in Icelandic politics. “All politics
for the past couple of decades, and indeed quite a bit
longer, have been about the issue of private versus pub-
lic ownership of resources. As a socialist, I have fought
my whole life to protect the country’s valuable natural
resources from exploitation at the hands of privatised
industry,” said Skarphéðinsson.
Asked what alternative approach his party would
have taken had they been in power, Skarphéðinsson
added: “It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about water,
geothermal heat, fish or anything else. The principle
is the same, and our policies are consistent: the natural
resources of Iceland should belong to everyone in the
country and all laws relating to the right of individuals
to exploit those resources should be temporary and have
a clearly defined sunset clause.”
Skarphéðinsson is far from being alone in his
concerns. A conference and resolution entitled Water
for Everyone was endorsed by 14 different organisations
and associations, including the National Church, the
Icelandic Teacher’s Association, the Icelandic Human
Rights Office and major labour unions such as ASÍ, SÍB
and BSRB.
Of course, the church is working the environmental
angle at a time when few of its other policies are likely
to garner widespread support or positive attention. And
it’s not entirely surprising that a labour union such as
BSRB would be opposed to the government on an issue
like this, especially because their chairman, Ögmundur
Jónasson, also happens to be an MP for the Leftist-
Greens.
At the height of the controversy, some felt he and
the Leftist-Greens were leading the charge and forcing
the issue out into a public debate. Jónasson, though,
told the Grapevine he couldn’t take credit. “It was the
nation that drove this issue forward. It was the people
who wouldn’t let it slide. People woke up and realised
the seriousness of what was happening; that our water
was being put up for sale. We answered the call for
action by filibustering the parliamentary debate, but we
did it in a fair, factual and rational way,” said Jónasson.
According to Jónasson, and in fact quite a number
of other vocal opponents of the proposed water bill,
the government simply isn’t keeping up with the times.
While the world around us is abuzz with concepts like
conservation and sustainability, they say, exploitation is
the order of the day in Iceland.
International Perspective
They have a point about the international community.
From its 2002 declaration that water was a human right
to the more recent establishment of a much-hyped
World Water Forum, the United Nations and related
NGOs have both adapted to and helped shape a new
worldwide discourse on water as a vital resource. We’ve
all heard futuristic speculation about water becoming
the new oil, or the ominous prediction that the next
world war will be fought over access to water. What not
everyone realises is the imminence and inevitability of
the water crisis.
According to the United Nations, the availability of
clean drinking water will decrease by at least 30 percent
in the next two decades. In South America, attempts to
privatise water in the face of rising demand and a falter-
ing supply have already resulted in violence and wide-
spread social unrest such as the Cochabamba protests
that shook Bolivia for the first four months of the year
2000. There, corrupt officials had effectively sold off the
country’s water rights to foreign investors for a pittance,
resulting in huge price increases for clean drinking water
and a dramatic decline in living standards amongst the
poor.
No one is suggesting water prices in Iceland are
about to rise to unreasonable levels, or that we as a
people wouldn’t be able to shoulder the burden of one
more outrageous bill at the end of the month. But
worldwide, supplies are already running low while the
global population booms. When there are already mil-
lions of people out there desperate enough for drink-
ing water to risk life and limb in violent street protests
against an authoritarian government and a powerful
multinational corporation, it should probably make you
pause and think twice before permanently handing over
the tap to the highest bidder. If you believe the govern-
ment, though, we already did that in 1923.
“All politics for the
past couple of de-
cades, and indeed
quite a bit longer,
have been about
the issue of private
versus public own-
ership of resources.
As a socialist, I have
fought my whole life
to protect the coun-
try’s valuable natu-
ral resources from
exploitation at the
hands of privatized
industry.” Össur
Skarphéðinsson.
by gunnar hrafn jónsson
17