Iceland should keep its faith in Nato

The Guardian

Vera Knútsdóttir

Formal talks on Iceland's accession to the European Union started on 27 July, spurring heated debates between the pro-EU and anti-EU camps. Some of the more optimistic EU advocates believe that once Iceland joins the EU there will be no need for Iceland to stay in Nato. Their argument is that article 28a of the Lisbon treaty will suffice, but it states:

"If a member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with article 51 of the United Nations charter."

These optimists are unhappy with US policies in the Middle East and Nato operations in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. Their belief is that ending security agreements with the US and ending the long-standing alliance between the two countries would better serve Iceland's security interests.

Iceland's Nato membership has been contested from the beginning. The constitution of the newly independent nation in 1944 declared Iceland's neutrality and by joining Nato in 1949 the government was forgoing Iceland's neutrality. This was, of course, at the height of the cold war and Iceland was strategically important to the US.

Now that the cold war has ended and the US has removed its military base from Keflavik, many have wondered if the US was committed to the defence of Icelandic territory and others have celebrated and want the government to take a step further and leave Nato.

Even if Iceland joins the EU it is within its interest to remain a member of Nato. Iceland has no military (nor any interest in having one) and has agreements with Nato, a bilateral defence agreement with the US and arrangements with the Nordic countries, as well as Britain and France, on defending the Icelandic air space and on joint exercises.

Under these agreements, Nato is bound to send fighter aircraft units three times a year to defend Icelandic air space. The system and facilities used for the defence and observation of Icelandic air space and mutual alliance air space around Iceland were funded, developed and deployed by Nato.

Withdrawing from Nato would pose enormous costs for Iceland to replace and/or buy these systems and facilities. The government would have a hard time rationalising such costs, especially considering the health of the Icelandic economy. It would also be a political blow to the long-standing partnership between Iceland and the United States; after all, the reasons to leave Nato would be political and directly related to unhappiness with US policies.

What the optimists need to realise is that in any partnership and alliance like Nato and especially in the EU, states will not always agree and be satisfied with all policies of the other member states. When it comes to operations in Afghanistan it is certainly true that many citizens of Nato member states are dissatisfied with the situation and how operations have been conducted and the loss of lives, etc. These are all legitimate reasons.

Nato is not above criticism and many things could be better within the alliance. But let's face it: Nato is the most qualified multilateral institution to provide for European security. The EU is struggling with the most recent enlargements and integration processes and sometimes it appears to be falling apart.

We have seen how the financial crisis has affected the relations between EU member states and, of course, between Britain and Iceland. Iceland should definitely strengthen its Nordic co-operation to be able to rely less on the US. But when it comes down to it, it is comforting to have Uncle Sam watching over you from a distance.