Iceland has engaged in a bitter struggle with the US over Washington's plans to reduce its military presence here, leaving Iceland's airspace defenseless and its economy weakened.
For half a century, the US has maintained a strong military presence here to counter the Soviet threat.
But Iceland now needs to come to grips with the bitter reality of its strategic insignificance in a changing world.
Last week Elisabeth Jones, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, handed Iceland's Prime Minister David Oddsson and Foreign Minister Halldor Asgrimsson a letter from US President George W. Bush which outlined the "changes in defense considerations."
The letter confirmed the US commitment to the joint 1951 Defense Agreement, but nobody here has been fooled by the glossy language -- it quickly became clear that Washington wants to pull out its remaining four F-15 fighters, three rescue helicopters and fuel planes from Keflavik Naval Air Station at the end of the summer.
That would leave Iceland, which has no military of its own, without any air defenses. Such a unilateral decision is viewed in Reykjavik as a violation of the spirit of the Defense Agreement, which calls for consultations.
Iceland wrote back, urging Bush to reconsider, and while officials here would not comment any further, it has been reported that the tone of the letter was far from friendly.
It seems that the Icelanders are willing to play hardball, telling the Americans that if they strip Iceland of its air defenses, then they should also give up the rest of the Keflavik base, which continues to be a useful outpost for the US empire.
Valur Ingimundarson, foreign relations expert and associate professor at the University of Iceland, said the issue is fast becoming "one of the most difficult crises in US-Icelandic relations since the end of the Cold War."
There is little indication that Oddsson's view has changed since he declared two years ago: "If the Americans decide they do not want to maintain a base that serves the interests of both countries it will simply be closed down. It's as simple as that and this is not a threat ... The base cannot be smaller than it is today."
Bush may have to intervene personally to prevent the situation from getting out of hand, Ingimundarson said.
The writing has been on the wall for the US air force presence in Iceland since the collapse of the Soviet empire, observers say, but now they sense a new, harder edge to Washington's tone.
"What has changed is that the Pentagon seems to be more insistent than before on overriding Icelandic political objections to the removal of the planes," Ingimundarson said.
Iceland has also been quick to remind Washington of its firm support over the years, most recently when it backed the Iraq war despite strong disapproval among the Icelandic population.
Few in Iceland have considered the possibility of Iceland maintaining its own air defenses.
It would be costly for the small economy and the total operational cost of the Iceland Defense Force (IDF), now paid by the Americans, equals one-tenth of Iceland's public expenses.
Although Icelandic officials play down the economic consideration of the issue, the IDF has contributed considerably to the small nation's economy.
The IDF's spending totals 1.5 percent of the country's GDP, according to estimates from Icelandic Central Bank.
It is also estimated that the proposed reduction at the Keflavik base could result in the loss of half the 1,700 Icelandic jobs which are linked, directly and indirectly, to the IDF.
That would be a serious blow to the town Reykjanesbaer next to the base, where most of the Icelanders working for the IDF live.
"The people are worried and the uncertainty is worst," says Bodvar Jonsson town council chairman of Reykjanesbaer.
Apart from the direct job losses that could follow a reduction at the base, Jonsson estimates that close to a quarter of revenues in the town's service sector are derived from the US presence.
"The best result, from both the economic and defense perspective, would be that things remain unchanged," Jonsson says.
"We trust the government to hold its ground and ensure the country's defense," he said.
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS