Trump forces Iceland to rethink its future security

“All disorder and misfortune, both of individuals and of nations, stems from the fact that people have looked only to themselves and precisely by doing so have looked least of all to themselves.”

This is not a quotation from an opponent of the “America First” policy of the current United States administration.

It is a line of thought that Jón Sigurðsson, the leader of Iceland’s independence struggle in the 19th century, committed to paper in his time. He brought to Iceland revolutionary ideas about national independence and free trade based on shared ideals and interests.

The quotation simply tells us that conflicts over the ideology which the United States is now trying to force down the throat of the entire world are nothing new. Nevertheless, for the past 80 years we have taken it as a given that there was unity in the West around the core values of democracy and free trade, based on rules that applied to both large and small nations alike.

The government of the United States has now turned this world view upside down.

The law of the jungle takes over

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States acted as the torchbearer of the ideology that nations could not look after themselves without also looking after others. The Marshall Plan, from which Iceland benefited greatly, is probably the clearest example of this.

Until recently, the President of the United States was referred to as the leader of the free world. Today, he is rightly regarded as the most powerful man in the world. But no one associates him with the defence of freedom, sovereignty, human rights, free trade or common rules that both large and small states must abide by.

The “America First” ideology implies that the United States does not want allies. The law of the jungle is to prevail. It follows that other states are merely victims of the strongest.

Although these changes have been developing in the United States for some time, they now hit the global community like a cold shower, and especially those nations that have regarded themselves as American allies.

The United States creates uncertainty around Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty

European leaders face a serious dilemma. Most of them try to speak as though nothing has changed. Everyone knows, however, that the ideological foundation of relations between Europe and the United States now belongs to the past.

Many political scientists believe that flattery toward the President of the United States is necessary while Europe buys time to adapt.

Statements by the U.S. administration about annexing Canada and taking over Greenland are regarded as unrealistic by many. Nevertheless, they reflect complete disrespect for the sovereignty of nations that have, until now, been allies.

The President of the United States recently proposed himself as a mediator between Russia and NATO. This means that the United States does not view itself as a NATO country when it comes to the war in Ukraine. In other cases, however, the United States acts as though it controls the alliance.

It is an understatement to say that the U.S. administration has created significant uncertainty about the core of the North Atlantic Treaty, embodied in its Article 5. Uncertainty alone reduces the alliance’s deterrent power.

The United States abandons Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty

Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty stipulates that member states shall engage in economic and commercial cooperation with one another.

This is the treaty’s second main pillar. It is built on the ideology that free trade and economic cooperation not only matter for growth and welfare but, above all, promote peaceful relations between nations.

Internal cooperation among EU member states, and cooperation between the EU and individual member countries with the United States, has reflected these commitments.

Thus, NATO’s obligations on defence and economic cooperation are two sides of the same coin.

Through its tariff war against allied nations, just as against all other countries, the United States is grinding this fundamental pillar of the treaty into dust.

Iceland and new hybrid threats

What impact do these radical changes within the alliance of free nations have on a small country like Iceland?

Like other European states, Icelandic authorities have tried to speak as though nothing has changed.

The 1951 defence agreement has been the cornerstone of relations between Iceland and the United States. We assume that U.S. commitments under it remain intact.

Until now, nations that may pose a threat to us, such as Russia, have had no reason to assume otherwise. But do they still see it that way? That is a pressing question, and the value of the agreement may ultimately depend on the answer.

The defence agreement does not address new circumstances such as hybrid threats, which now pose the greatest danger to Iceland. In this respect, we must strengthen cooperation with other Nordic countries and the European Union. The Icelandic government has taken this task firmly in hand. This represents an important adaptation to changed circumstances.

A response to an attack on Icelanders’ vital interests

It can be said that the 15% tariff imposed by the United States on Icelandic exports is the most serious economic attack on Iceland in a long time. Yet it is little discussed, because people want, for as long as possible, to close their eyes to the fundamental change in relations between the nations that it represents.

At present, no one can foresee how the United States’ global trade war will develop. What is fairly obvious, however, is that nations across different markets will need to take a wide range of countermeasures in the coming years, and possibly decades.

In such conflicts, larger nations and state blocs are in a stronger position than small states.

For three decades, Iceland has been part of the EU’s internal market while remaining outside the customs union. In this, we share a position with Norway, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Iceland’s vital interests continue to rest on free trade governed by international rules.

Since the United States abandoned free trade policy, the European Union is the only shelter for nations in and around the North Atlantic that want to secure their position in the world’s largest free market.

The U.S. attack on Iceland’s vital interests changes matters fundamentally. It has long been clear that full Icelandic membership in the European Union would be sensible, but now it is hardly avoidable if we intend to defend our interests in the long term.

Ideals and interests go hand in hand

Those who look only after their own interests and never those of others cannot, by their very nature, be allies to anyone.

Europe certainly struggles with internal problems. Nationalist populists built on similar ideology to the U.S. administration have gained influence in many places. That has also happened at home.

Icelanders do not have much influence on global affairs. But we, and indeed all the nations of the North Atlantic, can better safeguard our interests and at the same time strengthen the ideals on which European cooperation is built through full participation.

For that to happen, people must understand the value of the thinking echoed by our old pioneer in the struggle for freedom from the European movement of his time: that the misfortune of nations lies in looking only after themselves and thus least of all after themselves. Their fortune lies in the opposite.

Þorsteinn Pálsson is former Prime Minister of Iceland and was editor-in-chief of Iceland’s largest newspaper Fréttablaðið between 2006 and 2009. He was one of the founders of Viðreisn, which is one of the three coalition parties in the current Icelandic government.

Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Arctic Today.