ideasforpeace.org Open in urlscan Pro
20.33.55.41  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

GET https://ideasforpeace.org/

<form role="search" method="get" class="searchform" action="https://ideasforpeace.org/">
  <div class="search-form">
    <input type="text" value="" placeholder="Enter keywords..." name="s" class="searchform-text">
    <button><i class="fas fa-search"></i></button>
  </div>
</form>

GET https://ideasforpeace.org/

<form role="search" method="get" class="searchform" action="https://ideasforpeace.org/">
  <div class="search-form">
    <input type="text" value="" placeholder="Enter keywords..." name="s" class="searchform-text">
    <button><i class="fas fa-search"></i></button>
  </div>
</form>

Text Content

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 



 * About Us
 * Articles
 * Book Reviews
 * Podcasts
 * Videos
 * Contribute
 * ES
 * EN


 * About Us
 * Articles
 * Book Reviews
 * Podcasts
 * Videos
 * Contribute
 * ES
 * EN

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 




NO ARMS IN ICELAND

Author: Telma Halldorsdottir

Originally Published at Peace and Conflict Monitor on: 02/19/2004

Category: Comment

It can be funny coming from a small country like Iceland. Especially on
occasions such as when a friend from Iceland visited me in Costa Rica this
Christmas and was taken aside for 40 minutes at immigration at the airport in
San Jose, while they checked that Iceland was indeed a country! That being said,
one of the first things that people at UPEACE have commented on when I say where
I am from is that Iceland, like Costa Rica does not have a military, which in my
mind is something to be proud of. 

 

However even if Iceland does not have its own army and is a “country without
weapons” there is a United States military base located in Iceland. Its presence
is based on a Defence Agreement between the US and Iceland from 1951.

The reasons for the military base are historical. Iceland was occupied in the
Second World War by the British who later handed it over to the US. Iceland, a
former Danish colony, used the opportunity and declared independence in 1944.
The new democracy then became a founding member of NATO in 1949 and the presence
of the base was continued. Why it has continued for so long can be traced to the
fact that its location was considered of great military importance in the cold
war. Being mid way between Moscow and Washington proved to be a convenient
location and allowed for the surveillance of ships, submarines and airplanes
from the powerful Soviet Northern armies. However, after the thaw of the cold
war Iceland’s military significance in NATO’s defence system has decreased. This
has lead to a considerable decrease in the military base utility to a point
which the Icelandic government now considers an absolute minimum.

 

The Defence Agreement was not supposed to be in force indefinitely and therefore
contains an article allowing for a revision or a termination of the contract.
The article stipulates that both countries can make a proposal to terminate the
Agreement to NATO, which then assesses whether there is still need for the
military base. Twice the Icelandic government has had plans to terminate the
Defence Agreement in 1956 and 1973, but in both cases NATO estimated that there
was indeed need for the presence of the US military force. Since 1973 there has,
however been little discussion about the termination of the US army base by the
Icelandic government.

 

The threat to international peace and security changed in an instant after
September 11th. The world now faces new and unpredictable dangers and the threat
of terrorism has become one of the biggest concerns of the international
society. It has changed the debate on self-defence: more and more countries now
insist on the lawfulness of pre-emptive self-defence.

This change inevitably lead to different emphasis on US defence strategy and
last year the US Government made their plans known to further decrease the army
base in Iceland. These plans include taking the remaining 4 helicopters. The
Icelandic government took the position that the helicopters were the absolute
minim defence and if they should leave there was no ground for the army base any
more since it would only serve as a surveillance base for the US. The question
therefore became very imminent on whether Iceland would be completely without a
defence system. At the last minute, Lord George Robertson, NATO’s Secretary
General at that time, intervened. This led to the withdrawal of the US
government decision which decided that the matter of the base will be looked
into when the US army force in Europe will be revised as a whole.

 

A country completely without weapons?

The question then arises: what will happen if the US goes ahead with its plans
to decrease the force and Iceland insists on a total departure? According to its
obligations as member state to NATO, Iceland would then be responsible for
running the Keflavik airport base for its maintenance and security for NATO
usage as well as to ensure flight safety in the North Atlantic and being
responsible for the aerial surveillance of the country. Many feel that that role
can be assumed by Iceland. There are however economic interests at state since
the disappearance of the military base would leave many people of the town next
to the base unemployed.

 

 

 

There seems to be a consensus among Icelandic politicians that Iceland has to
show greater initiative on its own defence and security issues. At the NATO
summit in Prague in 2002 the governments of the NATO countries agreed to expand
their capacity to face the dangers of chemical, bio-chemical, and nuclear
weapons and to take effective measures against terrorism, which is now
considered an imminent threat to international peace and security. At the
summit, Iceland gave an important promise for more funding to common projects
and to increase Icelandic participation in peacekeeping. This shows its
willingness to participate in the common security system.

 

But which way to go?

 

Some have maintained that the fact that Iceland is a part of NATO is enough of a
defence system since according to article 5 of the NATO agreement, an armed
attack against one or more of member state is considered an attack against them
all.  If an armed attack occurs, each one of them shall assist in self-defence
recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the UN to restore and maintain the
security of the North Atlantic area.

It has also been raised that Iceland’s initiative should not involve arms but
means like increased funding for development projects, environmental protection,
help to refugees within the UN system and other international organisations.
Iceland has already been involved with such projects, such as taking over
control at the Pristina airport in Kosovo and taking part in peacekeeping in the
Balkans. In that way, Iceland has and should continue providing peacekeeping
forces with valuable specialised personnel that work aside soldiers and civilian
staff from other countries.

                       

Whatever the next steps will be, it is clear that many feel that Iceland should
take more responsibility for their own defence and safety matters. Top level
politicians have been quoted saying that this does not mean that they are
looking into building or buying weapons or that Iceland will take over the
projects of the military base, but rather to look into how Iceland can be a more
participatory in its own defences, thereby making defence a normal part of
Icelandic society.

 

But why should an isolated country with a population of less than 300,000
thousand need its own military, or for that matter a military base? That is a
question that I can’t answer.

A country whose only real conflicts have been the cod wars in the 70’s fought
with the United Kingdom over the expansion of fisheries zone (where we did
however take on and beat an empire), should be able to set a peaceful example as
a country without weapons.

 

Footnote:

Bio: Telma Halldorsdottir is engaged in postgraduate work in Costa Rica.

Share:
 * Facebook
 * Twitter

Categories:
Articles
Content Tags:
Costa RicaDemilitarizeIcelandNATO
Instagram







 * 
   Print
 * 
   Share
   Share:
    * Facebook
    * Twitter
 * +-
   Font Size