65° - 01.07.1968, Blaðsíða 28

The largest substantial argument to be brought
forth against Iceland’s NATO membership is that
rocket technology has greatly decreased Iceland’s
military importance and hence undermined the
main reason for adherance to the alliance.
This might at first sight seem to have some
validity. If a war is to be fought by intercon-
tinental rockets, overseas military bases lose im-
portance. Airplanes also have a longer range
and do not need the bases for refueling once so
important to all flying.
On closer examination it appears that defence
against rockets has made it necessary for both
sides to establish extensive radar warning systems.
Iceland has been a part of one of these. Secondly
submarines have become important rocket laun-
chers. This makes the submarine lanes in the North
Atlantic, which are close to the shores of Iceland,
much more important than before. Thirdly the
great Soviet naval buildup, which has been car-
ried through since the fifties, has given Iceland
a new importance. This was witnessed by the
recent naval maneuvres of the Warsaw Pact in
the North Atlantic which indicated that change
may be expected in the naval balance in the At-
lantic as well as the Mediterranean.
IV
The debate has touched a great many more
points than have been enumerated here. But
throughout twenty years elections have repeatedly
shown that some 80% of the Icelandic electorate
have supported NATO membership, possibly
more than that.
This large majority of the nation has accepted
the fact that neutrality is for Iceland obsolete, a
policy of the past that does not fit modern condi-
tions; that Iceland now has great strategic im-
portance which makes it imperative for the Re-
public to have a realistic and responsible foreign
and security policy.
In addition to this most Icelanders feel a strong
kinship to their neighbours, particularly the Nor-
wegians and the Danes. They feel that they be-
long in the ranks of free, democratic states and
should take part in a defensive alliance of these
states. Icelandic statesmen have repeatedly said
that Iceland wants to do its duty as a link in the
chain of NATO defence which has been so suc-
cessful in securing the peace in Europe in the
last two decades.
The debate will, of course, go on. At present
it seems unlikely that it will change the basic
Icelandic policy of NATO membership. Whether
the reexamination of the role of the Defence
Force will lead to any changes, it is impossible
to say at this time.
OBSERVING Continued from page 4
not familiarity. Although Jon Jonsson introduces
himself as such, in a mumbled undertone, most
of the guests don’t address him as Jon; rather
they speak directly to him without mentioning a
name. In this way they preserve the formality
that foreigners preserve by using “Mr. Jonsson.”
One speaks freely of Jon Jonsson, but calls him
Jon to his face only when friendship is establish-
ed. Less than twenty years ago, per, the formal
second person was used instead of pu the personal
addressive. Although per has largely passed from
usuage except among older people or highly edu-
cated formal people, a resident foreigner im-
pulsively addressing Mr. Jonsson as pu, might be
asker whether he in turn may be addressed as pu
(Since you have called me Jon, may I call you
Tom?) or he might unwittingly offend some
dignitary who interprets the univited use of pu
as familiarity rather than ignorance.
All the foregoing observations on formality
and lack of expressiveness in using Icelandic are
based on the assumptions that more than one
Icelander is present and that the group is sober.
Cautions are noticeably lowered when no other
Icelander’s presence makes it necessary to pre-
serve an “appearance”, or when a few drinks
have taken effect.
The inadequate introduction of guests at a
gathering seems to be an important factor in
accentuating the reserve so carefully practiced.
Usually a host greets his guest, then the new-
comer makes a handshaking round of each guest,
murmuring his own name and trying to memorize
the mumbled name of the owner of each hand he
shakes. After running the gamut, he sits down
and tries to figure by the ensuing bits of con-
versation who his fellow guests are. By the simple
expedient of the host taking the initiative to
introduce the newcomer by name, profession and
hobby, and introducing similarly even one guest
present who shares that person’s interests, job
or recent trip to Egypt, an immediate basis for
sharing of ideas is established — which is the
purpose of social intercourse.
It is not to be thought that this won’t be dif-
ficult to achieve.
26
65 DEGREES