The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

342 THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THEIR REGION AND EUROPEtinuation of a US air defence capacity based in Iceland, the presence of the helicopterrescue team, and the continuation of the naval monitoring and detectingsystem. 62 It thereby conserved not just the minimum air defence capacity butalso the protection enjoyed by Icelanders and a number of the Icelandic jobs atthe US installations.Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the launch of newmilitary operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, US Defense Secretary DonaldRumsfeld identified the Keflavík base as being among those overseas assetsthat were no longer required for the USA’s new strategic concept, making clearthat he saw no justification for maintaining US forces in Iceland. 63 The collapseof the former Soviet threat had reduced the strategic significance of the watersoff the north-western coast of Europe, and Russian naval and air activity in thearea was now minimal, removing—in the US view—any tangible threat to Icelanditself as well as any need to tie down US military assets in the area.Accordingly, in early May 2003, just a few days before a general election inIceland, the USA notified the Icelandic Government that in four weeks it wouldstart to withdraw the remaining four F-15 jet fighters and the helicopter rescueteam based at the Keflavík base. The Icelandic Government reacted with fury,but managed to keep the issue away from the media and the parliamentaryopposition until after the election. It demanded that the US decision be changed,arguing that under the 1951 Defense Agreement no changes could be made inthe agreement itself or the operations of US forces in the country without theapproval of both parties. The government demanded the continuation of the USair defence presence in the country, stating that Iceland’s defence would not becredible without it—or, indeed, with any further cuts at the Keflavík base. 64Reflecting his government’s outrage at the unilateral US decision, the PrimeMinister, Daví Oddsson, went so far as to state that the withdrawal of the jetfighters was tantamount to ending the Defense Agreement and that he saw nopoint in keeping the Defense Agreement and the US military base if the USGovernment was going to leave Iceland without credible air defence. 65 Thesewere strong words indeed, coming from a politician and a party (the IndependenceParty) that, as noted above, had been strongly committed to a closerelationship with the USA and the Defense Agreement.The Icelandic Government managed to raise the issue with US PresidentGeorge W. Bush and his national security adviser, Condolleezza Rice, with the62 Thorhallsson and Vignisson (note 5).63 ‘Vi höfum reynt a draga úr vibúnai á Íslandi’ [We have tried to reduce the preparedness inIceland], Morgunblai, 20 Apr. 2002, URL .64 The Prime Minister, Daví Oddsson, had made the same point on several occasions before theUSA’s 2003 decision; see Thorhallsson and Vignisson (note 5).65 ‘Varnarsamstarfi há lágmarksvibúnai hér’ [Defence cooperation depends on minimumpreparedness here], Morgunblai, 30 Mar. 2004, URL .