The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

344 THE NORDIC COUNTRIES, THEIR REGION AND EUROPEhalf of the 1350 US personnel still deployed there are from the Navy, and navalpersonnel account for most of those already withdrawn. 70There has been an ongoing dialogue between the Icelandic and US governmentsat both official and ministerial levels about US operations at the basesince May 2003. A number of formal meetings have taken place, but these havenot addressed the issue of the future scale of US activities and of which partyshould pay in future both for the costs of the Keflavík base itself and the internationalairport located there—currently part of the US defence structure andrun largely at the US Government’s expense. At the same time there have beenmany indications of tension between the two sides, including repeated USdelays in setting up meetings, but also a decision by the Icelandic side to cancela planned formal session in October 2005 and fly its representatives back homeafter first contacts with the US delegation proved unpromising. The IcelandicGovernment explained this incident as being provoked by non-negotiably highresource demands from the US side, but the media also speculated that the USAhad proposed moving the four F-15 jet fighters from Keflavík to an airfield inthe United Kingdom, while retaining (greatly reduced) facilities at Keflavík todeploy them in a crisis. 71 For their part, Icelandic ministers and officials claimthat they have managed to guarantee that Iceland’s air defence will continue tobe provided by the USA through the four F-15 jet fighters based in Keflavík:US officials have not confirmed this publicly but have stated that the US securityguarantee for Iceland will continue without change. 72 All in all, it can onlybe concluded that great uncertainty remains over the presence of the US militaryforce in Iceland; that solutions are hard to envisage under which the costs,especially of Keflavík airport, do not shift substantially from the US taxpayer tothe Icelandic budget; and that, in the last resort, the USA has demonstrated thatit can simply keep on downsizing its operations in Iceland without Iceland’sapproval.The future intentions of the USA regarding the Keflavík base thus constitutea sword of Damocles that still hangs over Icelandic heads and few officialsexpert in international affairs would disagree that the closure of the base is nowa matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘whether’. The resulting crisis of confidence inthe bilateral Defense Agreement has been aggravated by Icelandic awareness ofparallel developments in NATO as a whole which are making the alliance less70 Eydal (note 61).71 ‘Bil milli hugmynda um átttöku í kostnai vi Keflavíkurflugvöll meira en tali var’ [Bigger gapconcerning the cost of Keflavík airbase than predicted], Morgunblai, 20 Oct. 2005, URL ; ‘Miklu hærri fjárhæir en Ísland telur raunhæft’ [Muchhigher contribution than Iceland finds realistic], Morgunblai, 20 Oct. 2005; and Icelandic NationalBroadcasting Service, Channel 1, 7 pm news programme, 20 Oct. 2005, URL .72 ‘Herstövamál í brennidepli’ [Focus on issues regarding military bases], Morgunblai, 17 Apr.2005, URL ; ‘Niurstöur mögulegar ánæstu mánuum’ [Conclusion possible in the coming months], Morgunblai, 9 Sep. 2005, URL ; and ‘Enn ber nokku á milli’ [Still considerableagreement], Morgunblai, 9 July 2005, URL .