The Icelandic Canadian - 01.06.2000, Side 25

Vol. 55 #4
THE ICELANDIC CANADIAN
323
generations of Americans of Icelandic descent
to the mother country. It is remarkable that in
the inter-war years there were more books and
periodicals published in Icelandic in North
America than in the mother country. Still
today, we find an Icelandic language newspa-
per being published in Canada, serving the
third or even fourth generation of Americans
still cherishing their roots in the language and
culture of their forebears. It is my impression
that these immigrants have done pretty well in
the new country. They have managed to trans-
plant what is best in our ancient heritage to a
new and very different environment. Of
course they are good Americans and loyal cit-
izens of Canada. But they are still proud of
their heritage and determined to maintain the
bonds of kinship that bind us together.
The Trans-Atlantic Relationship
But when we come closer to our own
time we can say, without exaggeration, that
the bonds that bind us together, the United
States and Iceland, were forged in perilous
times of war - in the great and fateful contest
between the forces of totalitarianism and
democracy. I am, of course, referring to the
second World War.
Many military historians are on record
saying that the outcome of the battle of the
Atlantic was crucial for allied victory in the
war. Had Hitler’s generals and admirals
gained control of Iceland, as they did in the
case of Denmark and Norway, how would
that have affected the conduct and outcome of
war? If German U-boats would have enjoyed
safe harbor in Icelandic fjords, how would the
great convoys have fared that brought war
material for the Russians on the Eastern front?
And how would the great “Arsenal of
Democracy” - the United States - have been
able to ship men and machines safely across
the Atlantic to mount the crucial invasion of
Normandy?
Hitler had his plans to occupy Iceland.
He knew that he who controls Iceland, con-
trols the sea lanes of communication across
the Atlantic. It was therefore crucial for the
allied war effort to secure bases in Iceland as
was done by negotiations early on during the
war. Since then it has been recognized that
Iceland, within the NATO alliance, is the
physical embodiment of the Trans-Atlantic
relationship, which since then has been - and
remains to this very day - the mainstay of the
great democratic alliance of America and
Europe. And whatever changes in the world -
and a lot has changed since the fall of the once
mighty Soviet Union - geography does not
change.
It was this experience that taught us
Icelanders the hard way, that a unilateral dec-
laration of neutrality was futile; neutrality,
which no one respects, is a useless garment.
Products, that cannot be brought to market,
due to tariff walls or other trade barriers, have
no price and create no value. No one is an
island in the modern world. That is how we
learned the hard way that we belonged as
founding members in 1949 of NATO - the
democratic alliance that now is gradually
being transformed into the security structure
for all of Europe. It was this experience that
led us to conclude the defense agreement with
the United States in 1951. This defense agree-
ment is still in force. Next year we shall cele-
brate a 50 year anniversary of this solid and
successful co-operation between a small
NATO-ally and the sole remaining superpow-
er. As Foreign Minister at that time I negoti-
ated in 1994 with then Under-Secretary of
Defense, Dr. William Perry, on the future
implementation of our bilateral defense agree-
ment. Later this year we are expected to sit
down at the negotiating table once again to
decide on the future of this long lasting
defense cooperation into the first decade of
the 21st century.
In the post-war era and right up to this
day, these historical decisions - hotly disputed
domestically at the time but soon generally
accepted by the great majority of our people -
have been the cornerstone of our foreign- and
security policy. This cornerstone remains
implacable to this day. It is on the basis of
these decisions and those that followed -
acceptance of the Marshall plan, membership
of the Breton Woods Institutions, the OECD,
the GATT-process for the gradual liberaliza-
tion of world trade leading to the present
WTO, our membership of the European Free
Trade Association (EFTA) and our European
Economic Area agreement (EEA) with the
European Union - it is by those decision that