Reykjavík Grapevine - 24.09.2010, Blaðsíða 28

16
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 15 — 2010
always be enough champagne and we
would never have to pay the tab.
But all parties come to an end, and
then you need to clean up the mess and
pay your bills. This is what we’re doing.
And of course it is remarkable that
my party and I—who were the most vo-
cal critics of this ideology and really the
only party that actively opposed it—that
it would be up to us to clean the house
and foot the bill. But that’s just how it is.
Someone needs to do it, and it’s impor-
tant that it’s done well. I do think, how-
ever, that the people that threw the party
and sent out the invitations are not the
right people to clean it up.
Rumours
I heard a rumour shortly after you
took over, which said you were
trying to make sense of what had
happened to Iceland, that you
are trying to clean up the mess
but it simply wasn’t possible.
That you were telling folks it was
the biggest bank robbery in the
history of the world, worse than
anything people had heard hap-
pened in Argentina and other
places we’d heard horror stories
about... is this true?
Well, the events that unfolded here...
they are unparalleled in world history. We
keep hearing that our banks account for
the sixth, ninth and tenth largest bank-
ruptcies ever. It is nonsensical that such
a small economy can foster three bank-
ruptcies out of the top ten. The banks had
grown so absurdly large and inflated.
So in that sense these events will
certainly go down in world history, that
such a tiny economy can experience
such a vast collapse. I will not compare
us to other countries, but I advise people
to read the SIC Report’s findings about
the banks, and to read the charges being
pressed by Glitnir’s estate against that
bank’s managers—where they straight
out say that they robbed the bank from
within. That they used their ownership
to f leece it from the inside. And they did
this with large, established companies
too.
They bought firms in good stand-
ing, like Eimskip and Icelandair, and in
a matter of years they had transformed
them into empty shells encasing a pile
of debt. Their methodology, of extracting
the valuables from the companies, accu-
mulating debt and using it as leverage
for other investments, etc., it was truly
an unbelievable culture. And it is surely
unparalleled in the world, at least at such
a hypercharged version. IMf! IMf! IMf! OMG! OMG!
What about the IMf. One hears
many ugly stories of their in-
volvement with developing na-
tions and nations in crisis, of
selling off resources, privatisa-
tion and the like. Now they’ve
opened an office here and are
working with the government...
do you think it’s strange that
people are afraid of this fund
with its track record, and do you
believe what is said about it in-
ternationally?
It is true that it has a spotty track
record and I’ll be the first to admit that.
I was against seeking its assistance, I
would have liked to explore every other
option, but we had already entered an
agreement with them when we took over.
And I do think that a lot has changed
within the IMF. It is very aware that it is
working with one of the Nordic welfare
states, an open, democratic Nordic so-
ciety. This is a new school for the IMF;
they are well aware that they are being
watched by the international community
and they would be disgraced if they be-
haved belligerently.
I honestly can’t complain about our
cooperation thus far, it’s been an objec-
tive one and we have been able to affect
their plan and adapt it to our wishes in
many ways. But of course it isn’t anything
anyone would wish for, to be dependent
on such an organisation, and I will cel-
ebrate the day we are through with their
program and aren’t reliant on them any-
more.
Will Parliament ever grow
up?
Speaking of Parliament, I as a
citizen—along with many of my
friends—often cringe when ob-
serving Parliament at work and
noting the work methods that
seem to be employed. from
my perspective—and I am not
alone—it reeks of amateur-
ism, especially during debates.
Watching this group of adults
attempt to work is a baffling and
embarrassing experience, one
sometimes wishes they would
just shut up and do their jobs al-
ready....
This is a rather tricky subject... the
aforementioned Parliamentary commit-
tee makes remarks that Parliament’s po-
sition needs to be strengthened and the
conditions for sophisticated work meth-
ods improved. And they also severely crit-
icise the political culture—if one could
call it a culture—that has been dominant
here. I think that there’s a lot of truth to
what they’re saying. We need to make se-
rious amends.
And the criticism that’s being direct-
ed at Parliament and the public’s lack of
trust in it is partially justified... but par-
tially not.
One of the problems is the image the
media portrays of Parliament and the
face it frequently shows the nation. It is
negative. Attention is most often directed
at debates that occur at the start of Par-
liamentary sessions, and what happens
there honestly won’t win us any respect.
That doesn’t change the fact our MPs are
turning in a lot of work that’s generally
well prepared and thought out. And the
greater part of our MPs contribute sub-
stantially to important tasks regarding
legislation and resolving issues. The ma-
jority of the cases we handle we handle in
agreement.
Maybe this is where Parliament needs
to get a grip; we need to resolve these mi-
nor issues using the platforms we have,
in our committees and during party
meetings instead of bickering about
them in Parliamentary sessions. If we
did that, I believe the public’s perception
of Parliament would be very different. As
it is now, we are spending way too much
time publicly arguing about work meth-
ods, procedure, scheduling and the like.
With all due respect, but you do realise
the people are sending around clips of
[Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture]
Jón Bjarnason being interviewed... and
laughing at him. He seems to be widely
considered a joke...
That’s an entirely different matter. We are
all different, we all have our own style of
communicating and talking. People are
free to amuse themselves however they
want, but I do not want to standardise
Parliament and fill it with cloned types
that are all the same. It is important that
Parliament represents all aspects of soci-
ety and provides a cross-section of it, that
it contains both men and women, young
people and older people. Folks with dif-
ferent backgrounds that come from dif-
ferent sectors of society. The last thing
I want to see is Parliament being filled
with male lawyers aged 35–45, which has
sometimes seemed to be the ambition of
certain parties. That’s not the Parliament
I want to see.
Cooperation, compromise
As an MP throughout the years—
and let’s not forget you are the
longest serving MP aside from
our Prime Minister—you’ve
seemed very ideologically driv-
en. you abandoned the formative
talks for the Social Democratic
Alliance back in the ‘90s—an at-
tempt to unify the left under one
banner—opting to start a party
that would be closer to your ide-
als, to name one example. yet
now you are part of a govern-
ment that has done many things
that seem to directly counter
what you’ve made yourself out
to stand for.
you said earlier that during
times of crisis there may not be
a lot of room for ideology, but
how can you remain convincing
when you say one thing when
you’re an MP and quite another
when you’ve become a minister
and finally have the power to in-
stigate change. There are many
examples, like your government
apparently allowing ECA, a pri-
vate military training corpora-
tion, to set up shop here.
Well. We are part of a coalition gov-
ernment, and such cooperation always
calls for some compromise. It’s a natural
part of being in government and work-
ing with other parties, you won’t accom-
plish everything you would like. And this
means you have a choice: are you willing
to make that sacrifice, to serve your high-
er ideals, to never be willing to negotiate
with others or make a compromise...?
That is a stance in itself, but it follows
that parties that revert to this method are
permanently relinquishing any attempts
at influence through being in power and
in government. It means abandoning the
chance of acquiring a position to make a
lot of things on their wish list happen, it
means settling for a life in opposition. I
happen to be familiar with both being in
opposition and part of a government, this
is not my first time as a minister, and I
know what each role entails. As soon as
you cooperate with someone, you are go-
ing to have to compromise your ideals.
If you are putting out a fire, you don’t
care so much what colour your water
bucket is. You just have to keep your
house from burning down. But once the
fire starts dying down you can be more
picky with your buckets, maybe purchase
some environmentally friendly buckets
for the next round of firefighting.
And it might be noted that even de-
spite these difficult circumstances we
as a government and Parliamentary
majority have made several reformatory
changes, for instance in the field of hu-
man rights and women’s rights, changes
that were inconceivable during the reign
of our previous governments as the Inde-
pendence Party would veto them every
time.
Can you name specific exam-
ples?
We criminalised the purchase of pros-
titution, we outlawed stripping, we now
have one matrimony law for everyone.
The Minister of Justice no longer can ar-
bitrarily appoint judges according to his
will, we abolished that power and now
judges are appointed by a committee of
professionals. I could go on...

Human rights
Staying on the theme of human
rights. The brunt of our readers
are foreigners from all over the
world, and many of them have a
mind to make Iceland their home,
to work here, raise families and
contribute to our society. And it
seems—according to what a lot
of them are saying in their let-
ters and phone calls to us—that
our Directorate of Immigration is
one of the most inhumane insti-
tutions currently operating. That
it shows no regard for personal
situations of individuals, opting
instead to treat them as num-
bers on a piece of paper. People
are being deported with some
very questionable reasoning,
and then the process of immi-
grating to Iceland from outside
of the Schengen area seems all
but impossible. It seems like the
island has been fenced off with
barbed wire...
Yes, there might be something to all
this... However, I don’t want to accept that
the Directorate of Immigration’s proce-
dures are as bleak as you say; on the con-
trary we were determined to fix a lot of
things there. And I think that despite ev-
erything, our former Minister of Justice
Ragna Árnadóttir did a lot of good things
in this field. She took over a difficult
ministry after [former Minister of Jus-
tice, Independence Party member] Björn
Bjarnason’s long stint there. But we have
accomplished a lot of reform in this field
since taking over, that is a fact. We paid
a lot of attention to the topic and worked
together with the minister on amending
several problems.
We set out to put these matters in as
good a condition as is possible, but our
possibilities are certainly limited by the
fact that we are cooperating with Europe
on these matters and Europe has instated
certain rules that we have committed to
following. We chose to look to Norway,
because it is our opinion that they are
doing the best job of handling their im-
migration affairs. And we for instance
ceased deporting refugees to Greece. Like
the Norwegians, we waited for an assess-
ment on the situation in Greece before
proceeding. We now work under the rule
that every case be looked at individually
and family circumstances and others be
taken into account.
I do know that a lot of people are
unhappy with these affairs still, and de-
porting someone will always be painful
and difficult. But we have to work within
some sort of regulatory framework.
We also must remember that if we
plan on hosting international refugees,
we need to do it in a decent manner, and
we must be capable and equipped to do
so. There needs to be an ambition to do
it well and the oversight to handle every
unique case so that new Icelanders are
capable of easily adapting to our society
and building a new life here.
Are there any plans to reconsid-
er our current regulatory struc-
ture concerning immigration?
Yes, I think that’s rather likely and as
I have said we are first and foremost try-
ing to ensure that we are handling these
affairs in the best possible way. The dis-
course around it needs to be calm and
informed, and we need to realise that
there are two opposing factors that need
consideration. On one hand we want to
be able to contribute to aiding those in
need, to offer suffering refugees a place
to stay and live their lives; and to keep Ice-
land open to international influence and
immigration. On the other there is a risk
that if we do not carefully tend to these
affairs that they will wind up fanning the
f lames of racism, prejudice and social
unrest.
Adding to that, I must admit, I have
always had certain worries regarding Ice-
landers in those matters. An unpleasant
feeling in the back of my neck tells me
that we maybe would not display exem-
plary behaviour...
Herding cats
PM Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir al-
legedly said that working with
the Left Greens was like herding
cats... do you have an equally
poetic description of your coop-
eration with the Social Demo-
crats?
This comment, it was something
that someone supposedly said at some
time and the PM repeated. Oh, I don’t re-
ally pay attention to such nonsense. As a
whole, our cooperation has worked well,
at least things have always been good be-
tween the PM and I, which is important.
I believe that we have full confidence in
one another and that our relationship an
honest one. And in general our people are
working well together in committees and
elsewhere.
Then we have our differences and
problems; it’s no secret that we have been
faced with some very taxing problems,
and that has added strain to the relation-
ship between the parties.
But I don’t believe that us Left Greens
are constantly forced to compromise ac-
cording the Social Democrats will, as
some have insinuated.
The current situation would strain
any government. That is self-evident. We
have been regularly subject to a differ-
ent and major catastrophe, day after day,
month after month—it is important to re-
main calm and sensible, to confront the
issues as they come along and try solving
them without resorting to panic.
It has been like this for almost two
years now. I frequently wake up in the
morning without any idea what trouble
lurks ahead, it’s been one major event
after the other and I just try to leave the
house with that in mind. A volcano might
erupt, a Supreme Court verdict might
cause severe civil unrest, IceSave, her-
ring disease... you just try to remain calm
and do your job. This has been an event-
ful and demanding time, one I think no
Member of Parliament—no Icelander for
that matter—will ever forget.
Anger, rage, sorrow
Do you ever get angry about the
situation? About the way things
turned out?
Anger is not a big motivating factor
for me. I think it’s important to remain
calm and serene, that is the only way I
can do my job. That said, yes, of course
I get angry. When confronted with infor-
mation or evidence of gross misconduct
or criminal negligence. Sorrow is a more
common reaction with me when I learn
how things were done here, how the na-
tion’s well-being was continually and
recklessly endangered. I get sad or angry.
I was furious the day I read the SIC
report. I had planned on being coolhead-
ed about it but wound up really angry.
You could probably tell from my speech
at Alþingi that day. Why was I angry? It
screamed out at me. It was all so familiar.
Everything I was trying to say, all the ig-
nored warning signs. In hindsight, it was
so evident that we were headed for catas-
trophe, literally all the signs were point-
ing towards that. When I was reminded
of that, I was furious.
At who? your predecessors?
Voters?
At everything, really. Things hap-
pened that should not and cannot and
may not happen. Things should never
turn out so badly at the cost of so many,
requiring such great sacrifices. It is clear
that a lot of people failed tremendously,
one cannot reach any other conclusion.
And of course it’s easy to get outraged or
depressed over such events. But it is im-
portant to remain calm. To wrestle each
problem as it comes along. No one will
gain anything from empty anger.