Reykjavík Grapevine - 02.12.2011, Blaðsíða 8

ATV/Quad Adventure in lava and black sand by the
Blue Lagoon
Panorama 1-hour ATV tour
9.900 ISK p.p two on each bike.
12.900 ISK p.p one on each bike.
Lava Beach 2-hour ATV tour
16.900 ISK p.p two on each bike.
20.400 ISK p.p one on each bike.
Trip to the Moon 3-4 hour ATV tour
22.000 ISK p.p two on each bike.
27.000 ISK p.p one on each bike.
Volcanic Safari 6-7 hour ATV tour
42.000 ISK p.p two on each bike.
52.000 ISK p.p one on each bike.
Pick-up in Reykjavík 3.400 ISK p.p
Refres
hment
s
includ
ed!
Refres
hment
s and
lunch
includ
ed!

Fr
ee p
ick
-up
in
Gri
nda
vik
an
d B
lue
La
goo
n
Lavatours.is - +354-857-3001 - atv4x4@atv4x4.is Opt
ion
al: R
ela
x in
the
Blu
e La
goo
n a
fte
r th
e AT
V to
ur
ATV ADVENTURES ICELAND
8
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 18 — 2011
Iceland | Politics
A version of this story originally ap-
peared on the newsportal dELFI,
which is the most popular news ag-
gregator for Lithuania and Estonia. Its
writer, Ramunas bogdanas (former
assistant of Lithuanian independence
hero Vytautas Landsbergis), con-
tacted jón baldvin with an interview
request in the aftermath of Iceland
voting for—and Lithuania against—
UNESCO recognising Palestine, as
the former Minister for Foreign Af-
fairs instigated the international
community’s recognition of Lithuania
as an independent state, despite both
US and German opposition.
The below exchange was reportedly the
source of much discourse in Lithuania,
the crux of which was an open sympo-
sium held by the Lithuanian parliament’s
foreign affairs committee.
In light of Alþingi’s recent vote to ratify
Palestine as an independent and sover-
eign state, we are publishing a slight edit
of the original story, along with an ad-
ditional question from us (it’s at the very
end in case you were wondering).
How did Iceland vote at the UN on ad-
mitting Palestine as a full member of
UNESCO?
Iceland voted yes, since we support the
Palestinians’ claim for statehood. We think
this is a small step in the right direction. I
fully agree with our Foreign Minister Ös-
sur Skarphéðinsson on this issue. I think
that Israel’s intransigence and brutality
vis-à-vis Palestinian civilians is one of the
great tragedies of our times. The victims
of European racial prejudice and brutal-
ity have now become the perpetrators of
those vices themselves. It is not merely
immoral, but stupid, since it goes against
the long-term Israeli national interest. It
actually endangers Israel’s future security.
The US has utterly failed as a mediator
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has
lost all credibility as such. The silent US
acquiescence in the continuous expan-
sion of illegal Israeli settlements in the
occupied lands has disqualified the US as
a mediator. Both the US and Israel have
to be helped out of this mess. Before they
call upon themselves the rightful wrath of
people, suffering from unmitigated injus-
tice.
As a pioneer in advocating interna-
tional recognition of Lithuania’s dec-
laration of independence in 1990-91,
when we were still occupied by the
USSR—do you see any similarities be-
tween the Palestinian situation now
and the Lithuanian situation then?
The similarities are obvious, aren’t they?
Let us cite some of them: The Palestinians
have been occupied by a superior military
power for 44 years—and so were you. The
occupying power, Israel, is in breach of
the basic principles of international law
and international treaty obligations. So
was the Soviet Union in your case. You
were at the mercy of a superior military
power. So are they. The Soviet Union tried
to force you into submission by economic
sanctions. So do the Israelis, supported
by the US. The US and Germany said
that your declaration of independence on
March 11 in 1990 was “premature.” They
urged you to withdraw or “freeze” it. They
are still at it. Their advice should be reject-
ed, now—just as then. But are there any
differences? Of course there are. Some
say that whereas you used only peaceful
means, the Palestinians have resorted to
armed struggle. What do you do, when
a superior, occupying power excludes
peaceful means? Remember the “Forest
Brothers”? I would never condemn them.
Rather I admire their heroism.
Palestine is divided, both geographi-
cally (between the West bank and
Gaza) and politically (between Fatah
and Hamas). At the end of the current
electoral period, Palestine will have
no legitimate governing body. Should
this deter us from supporting their
statehood?
The Palestinians do have legitimate gov-
erning bodies, their mandate established
through democratic elections, just as you
did in 1989–90. The geographical parti-
tion of Palestine is partly a consequence
of the illegal occupation and is wholly ir-
relevant for the justification of the Pales-
tinians’ claim for statehood.
Should we base the right to an inde-
pendent state on historical examina-
tion or on the right of the people living
in a defined territory?
All nations have an inalienable right to na-
tional self-determination, based on their
national identity and cultural heritage as
well as the established tradition of living in
a defined territory. Statehood in the past
may strengthen your case for restoration
of independence, but it is not a precondi-
tion.
Some people say that the Palestin-
ians must reject the use of military
force, prior to recognition. do you
agree?
It is the Palestinians, by the way, who have
been living under a military occupation for
44 years—not the other way round. Gain-
ing statehood is not the end of the story.
The new Palestinian state would have to
negotiate with the occupying power to
withdraw their troops from its territory—
just as you did negotiate troop withdrawal
with the USSR-successor state in 1994.
The two states must define the ultimate
borders of their territory through negotia-
tions. They will have to negotiate a host
of other issues, as is well known. But they
should do so as two independent states,
on the basis of equality. The relationship
of a colonial master and subjugated, in-
ferior people should be ended. That is the
only way to break out of the current im-
passe. If the international community can
help, it should do so. We should recognise
that the US is out of the game. A repre-
sentative of a small nation, such as the
former president of Finland, Mr Ahtisaari
with a solid reputation and a proven track
record in conflict-solving, would be a suit-
able candidate.
Hamas has the declared aim to an-
nihilate Israel. Should we not insist
that they withdraw that declaration
before recognition of statehood is
considered?
My understanding is that Hamas has re-
jected Israel’s right to exist on occupied
territory. That is a simple fact of interna-
tional law. You don’t establish a state on
occupied territory, which belongs to oth-
ers. You can hardly expect the interna-
tional community to recognise such use
of force. Can you? This is one of the issues
to be settled through direct negotiations
between the two states.
The baltic road to freedom was
peaceful. With their track record of
terrorist attacks on civilian targets,
do the Palestinians deserve recogni-
tion of their statehood?
In January 1991 those in power in the
Kremlin had decided that it should no
longer be peaceful. The decision was
made to crack down on your embryonic
statehood by military force, on the pretext
that it was being done to protect national
minorities and even human rights! Mr
Gorbachev’s claim to a respectful place
in history rests on the fact that at the last
moment he withdrew from the abyss. That
is why the Baltic nations could secede
from the colonial power peacefully. If Mr.
Gorbachev had persisted in using force, it
would have resulted in a huge bloodbath.
Are the current extremists in power in Is-
rael as farsighted as Mr Gorbachev? Un-
fortunately not. That's why they need help.
Remember: There was a time when
Western leaders (e.g. both Mr Reagan
and Mrs Thatcher) nicknamed Nelson
Mandela as a “communist terrorist.” Mr
Mandela is now revered the world over
as a global symbol of forgiveness and rec-
onciliation. His is the great example of a
peaceful solution of a long pestering con-
flict. He has set a shining example for the
rest of us to follow.
Shouldn't small states simply be
content to follow the leadership of
the major powers, when it comes to
solving controversial international is-
sues?
Well, we didn’t, did we—when we decided
to support your claim to restored inde-
pendence against the paternalistic advice
of Messrs., Bush and Kohl?
do you feel Alþingi made the right de-
cision in ratifying Palestine as a sov-
ereign state? What do you believe the
effects will be, if any?
Yes, indeed. If Alþingi would have fol-
lowed the cowardly position of the In-
dependence Party, not daring to take a
stand, we should all have had reason to
be ashamed of ourselves. Our Foreign
Minister Össur Skarphéðinsson deserves
credit for his initiative in support of an in-
dependent Palestine. It takes some cour-
age to dare to do the right thing, even if
the majority of Western democracies have
abandoned their own declared principles
of acknowledging the inalienable right of
every nation to national self-determina-
tion. Fortunately, a vast majority of UN-
member states (132) welcomed Palestin-
ian membership to UNESCO. Hence, the
Palestinians have the right in the future to
refer the Israeli army’s war crimes to the
international court in the Hague. This is
therefore a significant step on the road
towards Palestinian statehood.
ON THE SOLIdARITy OF SMALL NATIONS
An interview with Iceland’s former Minister for Foreign Affairs Jón Baldvin Hannibalsson
“Remember: There was
a time when Western
leaders (e.g. both
Mr Reagan and Mrs
Thatcher) nicknamed
Nelson Mandela as a
“communist terrorist”
Commenters on The Jerusalem Post's website are all upset about
Alþingi's recent resolutions on recognizing Palestine. Are you upset?
Write us about it. There are of course lots of side to this story... right?
Words
Ramunas Bogdanas
Photo
Julia Staples