Greenland, Iceland and the meltdown of the old order in the North Atlantic
01:22:09 Share

Welcome to the LSE events podcast by the London School of Economics and Political Science. Get ready to hear from some of the most influential international figures in the social sciences. Good evening. Welcome to the LSE for this hybrid event. My name is Geoffrey Schwerath. I'm Professor of International Relations and Head of Department in the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

I'm very pleased to welcome everyone in our online audience and those of you in person to the Malaysia auditorium today. We are pleased to be joined by our speaker, Professor Goodni Johansson, who is the professor of history at the University of Iceland and from 2016 to 2024 was the president of Iceland. Our discussant today is Christina Spoor, who is a professor of international history here at the LSE. Today's event is titled Greenland, Iceland and the Meltdown of the Old Order in the North Atlantic.

and will focus on the current position and future developments of Greenland and Iceland and the North Atlantic at large in light of President Trump's determination to increase American influence and presence in Greenland. Following the lecture by Goodney, we will then have comments by Christina and a brief discussion chaired by myself before moving into the Q&A part of our event.

For our online audience, you can submit your questions via the Q&A feature at the top left of your screen. When you do so, we ask you to please let us know your name and affiliation when submitting your questions. For those of you joining us in the theater, I will let you know when we open the floor for questions. When I do so, I would ask that you raise your hand and wait for the microphones from our stewards, and I will then ask you to provide your name and affiliation before posing the questions to our panel.

I will try to ensure a range of questions from both our online audience and audience here in the theater. For those using Twitter, the hashtag for tonight's event is hashtag LSE events. Please note that this event is being recorded and we will hopefully be made available as a podcast subject to no technical difficulties. But now I am delighted to hand it over to Goodby. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I hope you can hear me. Excellent. Well, it gives me great pleasure to be here at this

prestigious place. We Icelanders are known to be people of few words, so I will just get right to it. But I'm sort of getting used to this world again. As you heard in the introduction, I'm a professor of history at the University of Iceland now, a position I held before I was president of Iceland.

So I'm getting used to the academic life again. So you just have to bear with me if I don't sound academic enough. Greenland, Iceland, and the meltdown of the old order in the North Atlantic. Yeah, in this talk, I'm going to look north to the Arctic, a hot region in more ways than one these days.

But more specifically and based on what I happen to know best, I'll examine whether the history of Iceland, my home country, offers some valuable lessons for our good neighbors, the Greenlanders, as they continue on their rightful road to increased sovereignty within the Danish realm, ultimately leading to full independence, if they so wish,

But first a few caveats, since comparisons can be problematic and only go so far. So, Greenland is undeniably an Arctic country. It lies mostly north of the Arctic Circle, and you can see that here on the map, and the photo is of a small town, Manitouk, in western Greenland. Greenland, as you can see, lies mostly north of the Arctic Circle,

and it's mostly covered in ice. Also, it was first inhabited by Inuits, and they still comprise an overwhelming part of the population. Most of them speak various dialects of Greenlandic and Eskimo Aluit language. Maybe you cannot see too well there. This is from my visit, my official visit to Greenland in 2019 when I was in office.

The photos, one of them is from Kofo Skule, a sort of organization, a place for people who need a bit of help to get them going in life. And that piece of paper, there is my note. Dear host, dear Greenlanders, I thank you for your hospitality. I wish you all the best in this great country that you own.

and can give you and next generation such a promising future with warm wishes from Iceland. Thank you very much. And then, you know, I attempted to speak Greenlandic and as you can see, like, this is just how it's meant to sound. And I will not try to attempt it here, but you can definitely see and notice how it is completely different. Asasakagissusut, something like that. Begins like that. And then the other photo,

That's from a visit to the university, Ílisi Matusarfiik, the University of Greenland in Nuuk, the capital. Now, I don't think you're so hawk-eyed that you can see what's written there on the blackboard, but two of the comments there are informative. One, "Høyspent politisk situation i Arktik", in Danish, "very tense political situation in the Arctic".

And the second one, why does Iceland consider itself an Arctic nation? It's a good question. Is Iceland an Arctic country? To begin with, the Arctic circle, just like Arctic nature, society and geopolitics, is in constant motion. It's not static. It's not fixed.

Its latitude depends on the globe's fluctuating axial tilt. You just have to believe me there. I cannot describe it in any further detail. But its moves can be calculated in advance. We know how the Arctic Circle will travel. I'm tempted to quote Isaac Newton here, who said that he could calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people.

So, conversely, no part of Iceland, the main island itself, lies north of the Arctic Circle. Still, the northernmost tip of Grímsey, a small island, that red dot up there above the mainland, is just inside the Arctic Circle. And they have this piece of art, it was a

put there in 2017, I think, this gigantic ball weighs like tons, to pinpoint where exactly the Arctic Circle lies. And every year they have to move it, because the circle moves eight meters or so every year. It's a tough job. I don't think they realized, you know. But there we are. And in 2047,

the Arctic Circle will move north of this tiny island. I guess they'll just throw it into the sea. That's in the distant future, 2047, that's not my problem. And what happens then? We will be left with another island, or a skerry, called Bensei, even further north.

assuming that this will not have vanished by then through erosion because of sea and ice. But as a final frontier in this regard, the last stand as it were, Iceland's exclusive economic zone, the fishing limit, we fought the Brits on that, but that's a different story, lies well beyond the Arctic Circle. And in any case, that artificial line, the Arctic Circle itself,

cannot be the only determinant in this matter. You could say if you feel Arctic, you are Arctic. That, however, raises another question. In ancient times, humans did not reach Iceland from the north or the east. There were no indigenous people on that island when north settlers arrived some 1200 years ago. There were only a few Irish monks

according to written accounts. No Inuits, no indigenous population. We know that for certain, or as certain as you can be. And therefore, the Icelanders certainly did not want to be labeled an Arctic nation. They wanted to be Nordic, European, counted among civilized, cultured, and advanced peoples, if you like. And this escape from the Arctic could be heard in modern times,

when ignorant or innocent foreigners came to Iceland and asked a silly question in the minds of Icelanders and got this reply: "No, we are not Eskimos and we do not live in igloos." Here's a newspaper article from 1940 and you could see it there. Well, incidentally, since we're commemorating now the end of the Second World War, there's a British bomber plane there. This is July 1940.

And you can see here, in the extreme left, there's a column where the finishing lines are. The first thing Icelanders say to foreigners is this: "Please understand that we are not Eskimos." And this distinction between us and them entered popular culture as well. So take for instance the song "Greenland" by Pippi Mortens. I haven't heard of him, but he's Iceland's version of

Bruce Springsteen, Billy Bragg, or Kim Larsen, if there's any Danes in the audience. Yeah, here we are. So he wrote, in 1983, a song called Greenland. And one of the verses is like this. I'm not going to sing it. Fyðr vitund þjóðar þinnar er a vakna, horf yr þjóð nýn i aðra átt. Húðlitt sínum hún hampar, sem er kvítur, hú veist við kvað er átt.

When you are rising up, we look the other way. We cherish our color of skin. It's white, you know what I mean. In Iceland, Greenlanders could meet prejudices like those that they constantly encountered in Denmark. That they were backward, uneducated, unfit to run their own affairs, and could largely blame themselves for serious social ills in their country, like alcoholism or sexual abuse. And furthermore,

well into the latter half of the 20th century, interest in Greenland, in Iceland, sometimes centered on selfish claims to that large island. Because after all, Eirikur Rauði, not Erik the Red, and all the Norsemen, sailed from Iceland and settled there in Greenland around the year 1000. It was Erik, or Eirikur, who gave the country the name Greenland we now know. Or Grönland in Danish.

But the official name in Greenlandic is Kalashid Nunad. So therefore, last century, some Icelanders argued that Greenland should belong to Iceland, not Denmark. Now, if we have the time later on, I'll tell you an anecdote about the conflict between Iceland and Norway, about the nationality of Erik the Red, or Eirik or Røyði, because you can see there on that Wikipedia page I'm showing you,

Born Jeren, which unfortunately happens to be in Norway, not Iceland, but died in Bratallið in Greenland. Now, considerations like this never reached official level, but they garnered some support or sympathy among the Icelandic population. If anybody should rule Greenland, it should be us, the Icelanders. So, in geographical or anthropological terms, Iceland is not an Arctic country.

However, other determinants can of course be taken into consideration. Geopolitics matter. Iceland is a founding member of the Arctic Council, a consultative body that will celebrate its 30th anniversary next year. And the Arctic Circle, the annual conference in Reykjavik, named after the Arctic Circle itself, is a well-known main meeting point and melting pot for deliberations on Arctic affairs.

generating great interest among all players, great and small, great and small, who want to influence developments in this part of the world directly and indirectly. And furthermore, global warming and the incessant meltdown of Arctic ice affects Iceland. Of course, it affects the whole world, but proximity matters here. And finally, the line between

Arctic and non-Arctic has always been artificial, blurry, and the Greenlanders are making it more so now. While they hold on to their heritage and unique connection with nature, they are strengthening and developing their nationhood and relations with the outside world. Greenland will remain an Arctic country, but today we should see better than before that it is also Nordic,

Western, in particular, Greenland is West Nordic, an ally, friend and neighbour of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The other members of the West Nordic Council, a parliamentary body founded in Nuuk, the Greenlandic capital, four years ago. Now, of course, the Greenlanders themselves can best describe their nationhood, their interests, their aspirations and their plans. That's not for me to say.

But what I know still is that we Icelanders are willing to work with them as they wish. Now that approach is of course both self-centered and altruistic. It's in our interest in Iceland to see the Arctic and the West Nordic region flourish in peace and progress so we can cooperate with Greenland in healthcare, education,

various other fields and Iceland is an obvious partner for Greenlanders as they become more independent in industry, trade and tourism. And we have a roadmap. Iceland used to be under Danish rule. I'm going to give you a one paragraph slide, the history of Iceland. You don't have to read more. So

It was free commonwealth from the settlement to the 13th century when the Icelanders became subjects of the Norwegian king. And later on, when Norway and Denmark joined the Royal Union, Iceland was included. Subsequently, the country was akin to a Danish colony, not formally, but to all intents and purposes. Then the 19th century, period of national awakening as in so many other parts of Europe.

In 1845, the old parliament, Alfink, was restored. And in 1874, the King of Denmark granted Iceland a separate constitution. 1904, Iceland was given home rule. 1918, Iceland and Denmark agreed on a union treaty granting Iceland sovereignty. But Denmark handled Iceland's foreign affairs properly.

and the sovereign remained Danish. The king of Denmark was also the king of Iceland. This agreement could be terminated after 25 years and in 1944 the Icelanders established a republic severing all formal ties with Denmark. So the king was replaced by a president. Good news for me. Now we keep this in mind because like I said we have a road map, we have a blueprint.

for others who might be interested. But this, dear friends, is how the old order collapsed in one part of the North Atlantic, in Iceland, step by step. But naturally the change was not only political and constitutional. Economic and technological advances fueled the independence drive, as did increased commerce and relations with the outside world,

Education and social change must not be discounted either. We had the University of Iceland founded in 1911 and all kinds of associations being formed. The feeling that people could indeed stand on their own feet. The nation grew in self-confidence. Constitutional change is one thing. Economic progress is one thing. But you have to feel that you can actually do it yourself. That's a key ingredient as well.

So also, as you can see there, a few milestones after independence, after full independence, Iceland was never a member of the League of Nations, but joined the UN in 1946, then by far the smallest state in the organization. During the Second World War, U.S. forces were stationed in Iceland. And after the end of hostilities, the U.S. administration wanted to maintain a military presence

in Iceland. And as one of Iceland's leading politicians remarked in private, "The United States would probably get Iceland, no matter what we said, if they felt that this is what they need." Maybe you want to substitute Iceland for Greenland there and move onward to the present, I don't know. But then a compromise was found. Civilian forces run the vital airport in Iceland. And in 1949, Iceland became a founding member of NATO.

and two years later entering a defence agreement with the United States and US troops returned on the island, to the island. There was a military base at Keflavik airport and surveillance posts around the island and the US-Icelandic defence agreement is still in force although the base was shut down in 2006. And Iceland has no army, therefore the obvious need to work and rely on others

for military protection should that need ever arise. And of course, this story is also relevant to our friends and neighbors in Greenland. Again, we must remember caveats about the limits of use of comparisons. The Greenlanders are on a similar journey. Greenland came under Danish rule in the 18th century.

and as late as 1953 it was formally a colony of Denmark. The Danish authorities then changed its status so that this largest island on earth was made a county within the Danish kingdom. Economic and social changes followed as well as calls for increased autonomy. Arguably Greenland's national awakening began in earnest in the 1970s

19th century in Iceland, but 1970s in Greenland. You can see there on the right hand side, seen from me, some key moments in Greenland's political and constitutional history. And a good example of the national awakening, as it were, in Greenland in the 1970s would be the Rock Band, Súme,

the first rock band in Greenland and the first album produced in 1973. And as one of the band's members later said, "Our primary objective was to foster acceptance of our distinct identity and assert Greenlandic culture." After a referendum in 1979, the Greenlanders were granted Home Rule, happened in Iceland in 1904,

and they gained more sovereignty after another referendum in 2009. And then, as I will mention, there's a draft constitution before the Greenlandic Parliament was delivered to Parliament in 2023. Here's a slide on Sume. This is the cover of their first album. The Inuit hunter there having beaten or having avenged or killed a Norseman. So just like we in Iceland before,

The people of Greenland want to take increased control of their own affairs. Are they capable of that? Can they stand on their own feet? Do they have the resources, the know-how, the experience? Can they run a functioning society? Can they defend themselves? Such questions sound familiar to Icelandic historians because these questions were also asked when Iceland was on its road to independence. And I guess questions like this sound familiar to

historians of decolonization all over the world. And again, the Greenlanders themselves will best be able to answer doubters about their future and their ambitions. Of course, they are not wholly united on aims and methods. They disagree in their risk benefit assessments. But so did the Icelanders for that matter, and so many others in similar circumstances.

And again, we in Iceland are willing to help our friends and neighbours. I mention here the work of law professor Gudmundur Alfredsson on Greenland's position and legal rights, free association, etc., other possible means. I was also pleased as president to receive Greenland's constitutional committee in 2017

And I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Icelanders want to see the Greenlanders gain more control of their own affairs, if that is their desire. That's from the, well, foreigners call it the presidential palace in Reykjavik, nay, in Iceland, close to the capital, Reykjavik. It's more like a presidential residence, as you will see. If you ever come there, you're, of course, most welcome. But that's me there.

with the Constitutional Committee from Greenland in 2017. So, yes, let's see. Yeah, if that is their desire, to gain more sovereignty, that's not a big if. That process will hardly stop. And this milestone was reached two years ago, like I said, when the Parliament of Greenland, in Atsjartut, was handed a draft constitution for further deliberation.

And according to that document, Greenland would become a sovereign state, maybe similar to Iceland's status between 1918 and 1944. So, what happens next? I'm not going to tell you anything certain about that, because that's a no-no for historians. We can never predict with any certainty what happens next, especially in this day and age.

President Donald Trump's determination to increase American influence and presence in Greenland has dramatically influenced all future scenarios. His offhand but repeated remarks of purchasing the country are preposterous. We do not live in an age where mighty states can buy and sell islands, countries and peoples.

Furthermore, a treaty between the United States and Denmark on behalf of the Greenlanders, the Greenland Defense Agreement, is in place. It was made in 1951, just like in Iceland's case. And under that arrangement, the US administration has been able to safeguard its perceived security interests in Greenland. There's no reason to believe why that would not continue to be the case. Now, naturally, Trump's comments

expressed most recently just a few days ago, you can see that on that slide, this is just what Google will tell you, jolted both the Greenlanders and the Danish government. And on the one hand, I am reminded of a comment made by a leader of an indigenous group in another part of the world. He said, "Our problems really began when other people started having an interest in us."

That's true in more ways than one for Greenland and all the parts of the world. On the other hand, the Greenlanders can possibly benefit from the shock waves that hit their shores. And the Danes as well, for that matter. A body like the Kingdom of Denmark, Riksfellesskapet in Danish, cannot remain static. That we know. It must develop in line with the will of its citizens. Not subjects, but citizens. And furthermore,

views on the past must change as well in an honest manner where mistakes or misdemeanors are admitted and accounted for. Denmark was a colonial power. Incidentally, the last time the US purchased land from another government was over a century ago in 1917. The Caribbean islands of St Crokes, St John and St Thomas

were then bought for 25 million US dollars. That's the equivalent of a little over 600 million dollars today. And they became known as the US Virgin Islands, and the seller? That was Denmark. Danish rule, in what became known as the Danish West Indies, was established in the mid-18th century, around the same time that Danish control was established in Greenland. When I was in office,

I sometimes remarked that if we Icelanders could have chosen a colonial power, we might as well have opted for the Danes. It could have been much worse. They weren't really that interested in us. And the relationship, let's be clear on that, the relationship today and the last decades has been excellent between Iceland and Denmark. We love the Danes. Nothing wrong with them. Ah, two cents back.

So you see it goes both ways. But speaking of loving things, if it's one thing we love, it's beating the Danes at sport events. And we still have one unfinished task there. We have to avenge for the 14-2 defeat in men's football in 1967. We've never beaten the Danes men's team. We've beaten the women's team. But the men's team, we still haven't beaten them.

And I know for certain that when that happens, the feeling of ecstasy will be the same that I enjoyed three days after I was elected president in 2016, when we beat England at the Euros in 2016. And full disclosure, I make a determined effort whenever I speak in England to mention that. 2-1.

We were down 1-0 after seven minutes, eight minutes, rain-ruining penalty. And I thought, oh dear, this is how it's going to begin for me. I'm thrashing by the UK. No, we managed to beat them 2-1. One of the best days of my life. No, we like the Danes. Nothing against the Danes. And, you know, for one thing, they gave us back the lion's share of our national treasures.

the manuscripts of the Icelandic sagas and the etas and other invaluable items Iceland's contribution to world civilization they said yeah it should belong to you rather than us even though we bought it or were given it throughout the centuries it's right that these Icelandic items should be in Iceland where they are certainly valued and treasured and uh

I venture to mention this in fairly close proximity to the British Museum. Take notice. But yes, Denmark was a colonial power and I'm reaching the end of my talk now. You know, when you're head of state, nobody dares interrupting you, stopping you, so I'm used to just talking until I don't want to talk anymore, but I'm getting close. Denmark was a colonial power and while its rule

may compare favorably with other more brutal regimes. The colonial episode in Danish history contains chapters of inhumanity and injustice. Danish rule in Greenland in recent decades includes the uprooting of families, forced child removals, and a sterilization program which affected thousands of women in the 1960s and 70s. An honest assessment of these wrongs

is a prerequisite for a continued positive relationship between Greenland and Denmark. Fortunately, steps have been taken in that direction and let us only hope that more will follow. We cannot change the past, but we can change how we perceive it for our own benefit and that of future generations. And we can try to learn from the past. One lesson might be that old orders come to an end

at some point. And another lesson, it's usually better to see that happen in an ordinary, mutually agreed manner. So, dear listeners, that's my take on Iceland, Greenland, and the collapse of the old order in the North Atlantic. I hope you enjoyed the talk.

And I'm looking forward to engaging in a conversation with an old friend, Kristina, and then taking some questions. And hopefully I'll answer with more than a yes or no. But let's just see how that goes. Thank you very much. With all respect for the Prime Minister of Denmark, I'm not going to have her over watching us. Thank you, Kuti. I'm now going to turn it over to my colleague,

Christina Spohr, please. Well, Gutny, thank you for this tour de force. I hope you can hear me with this microphone. And all these entwined histories of Denmark, Iceland, Greenland, the histories of colonization and decolonization, and also the histories of emancipation and independence, and of the right to equal sovereignty.

These latter words, of course, spell out key principles on which our international order past 1945 and past 1990 has hinged. And before we come to talk about the Arctic, and I have a few themes I want to tackle on this region and also on the Western Nordic in the present and the apparent meltdown of the international order at present and at large...

Let me first ask you as an old friend and fellow historian, how as a historian by training and indeed profession did you fill the role as Iceland's president, as Iceland's head of state? You held the presidency for eight years from 2016 to 2024.

What did you feel you brought to the job? What were the advantages of being a historian statesman? Or what perhaps were the pitfalls or the deformities of being an academic scholar? And how did you apply knowledge and analysis of the past to the present? Or did you do so at all? Yeah, well, again...

Thank you for showing up. And yeah, the office of president in Iceland, it's not like in the States, for instance, or France. It's a combination of a ceremonial post, but politics can intervene as well. So it's not just totally powerless sovereign. One would have thought that being a historian was a nice preparation and background for being head of state. But

There is a problem. Having said that, that's the curse of us academics. Whereas when you're head of state or when you're in politics, it's so much better if you are totally confident in what you're saying, in your opinion, your beliefs, and there is no but, there is no if, there's no having said that, there's no on the other hand. And it's almost written in your job description to be optimistic. That's not how it goes in academia.

and be a unifying figure. Can you imagine like in Iceland as in so many countries the head of state delivers a new year's address. So can you imagine if I would have started my new year's addresses like good afternoon my fellow Icelanders you're not that great. The year ahead in my opinion is gloomy. We argue about everything and some of you are just plain idiots. You can't do that and for that matter you cannot do that in academia even you may think so

But what I'm trying to say is that in that role, that honorable role, and I can safely attest to that, it's an honor every day, you have to approach the past and the present from another direction. We know, those of us who have studied history, that history is a powerful tool for statespersons, for good or ill states.

We see that in Ukraine during the war, with the war in Ukraine, how President Putin is trying to say that Ukraine is not really an independent state. Ukrainian language doesn't really exist. It's all Russia. And how you can abuse history is obvious to us, I should think. But I felt that having a background as a historian should be...

assistance. I think that in that position you need to know your history, but more than that, you need to be aware of the fact that history is so multifaceted and there are so many approaches. And what I tried to do all the time in office was to deliver that message to the good people of Iceland, that we should not try to construct a simple one

version of Iceland's history, highlighting the glory days, neglecting the dark side, dark pages. No, we should see it as a multifaceted aspect. And yeah, I'm about to conclude because I go from one thing to another. Nationalism comes into this as well. I wanted to promote something that you can call positive patriotism.

In academia, I felt strongly sometimes that nationalism was almost looked down on. And of course we know how much ill can result from excessive nationalism, hatred of others, extremism. But something that you can call an affection for your country, affection for heritage, that is something that we need to hold on to. So as a historian, it was a wonderful opportunity to turn from academia to nationalism.

to the office of head of state and to give you some summary being a historian definitely helped more than it was a hindrance but sometimes i felt like oh i need to stop saying having said that and actually people told me you're a you're a president now stop saying having said that on the other hand etc just get to the point and stick to it

Well, I'm coming to you now as a political actor and the chief representative of your state. A small state. Previous. I'm done. I'm not there anymore. No. And, of course, also a young state. A young state...

just below the Arctic Circle but nonetheless one that looks north and of course in that position you also as a diplomat, as a head of state, as a representative, you look to opening avenues. And since we are talking about this region, you mentioned the Arctic Council. And here for you students, just think, you know, here are small countries that have a seat at the same table with the really big beasts.

They sit there as equals. I talked about equal sovereignty before. So who are these eight Arctic states who are represented at the Arctic Council? It's the U.S., it's Russia, it's Canada, and the five Nordic states.

And what's more, you have permanent observers and representatives, notably representatives of the native communities, the Inuit, the Sami, the Nenets, all the peoples that live, that indigenous live there for thousands of years. So we could say that here's an excellent example of an institution as a forum that fosters cooperation at all these different levels,

It is between the colonizer and the colonized, superpowers, small states, non-state actors. And it was a body that was created to remind us, it's almost 30 years old, in the heady

days when we had much hope of that post-Cold War era in the days of engagement over cross-border issues. And by that I mean not explicitly not foreign and security policy, which was excluded from the Arctic Council, but issues like nuclear waste pollution, climate change, infrastructure projects, economic cooperation, and so forth.

became a zone of exceptional peace and cooperation. Now, when Russia started the war of conquest in Ukraine, this exceptional zone, this exceptional peace

was affected by this exogenous thing. Previously, for 30 years almost, it was kept separate from other conflicts. How did you in Iceland experience that rupture? Did it play any role? What did you make of Russia? What was the feeling? What was the politics? Historically, Iceland has enjoyed a good relationship with Moscow. In Soviet times, the Soviet Union was among Iceland's

most important trading partners, even though the Cold War went on. The Arctic Council today, after the invasion of Ukraine, has been in what I guess can be called dormant state. It hasn't been disbanded, but Russia cannot be treated as if nothing has happened.

And it has, of course, upset all cooperation and dialogue on Arctic affairs. And it's Russia's fault. There was no lack of willingness to cooperate, even after the annexation of Crimea, for instance. I remember I went twice to Russia to Arctic meetings in Arkhangelsk and St. Petersburg. And the time just came.

when you cross a line or when you cross a border, when you invade a neighboring country, where you say enough is enough, we cannot tolerate this at the cost of cooperation, at the cost of vital cooperation in the Arctic. And we can only hope that the time will come when we can continue or resume working with reasonable leaders in Moscow because

The Arctic region deserves it, and you cannot really determine or make important decisions on Arctic affairs with the situation as it is now. Iceland took part in sanctions against Russia, and therefore...

was met with sanctions by Russia and it affects us just as it affects other countries in the Arctic region. But for Iceland, the interest of course lies in maintaining the Arctic region or enhancing it as a non-militarized zone where we make sure that pollution will not affect this sensitive region.

where we work together to ensure that the rights of the indigenous populations are respected and that their wishes are prior to the will of others. So we just have to be looking at events rather than determining or influencing them. We are onlookers in this matter, but we are reliant on the world situation to improve for the better whenever that happens. Okay, well this takes me to another big power.

So Iceland, like Svalbard, but also Finland, Sweden, Greenland have all been of great interest to China, to the Chinese

When it comes to, for example, research stations, the Chinese say they need these research stations because they want to be involved with understanding climate change, with understanding weather. With port projects, they're interested in shipping and transport infrastructure. And, of course, with all sorts of mining and fishing ventures in international waters or in lands they can get access to.

China is a self-proclaimed near Arctic state with ambitions for influence in Arctic affairs and a polar Silk Road. They have pressed for a seat on the Arctic Council. They didn't get a full seat, but they can observe. And they're looking to have a say also in this region in geoeconomics and this geostrategic interests.

They're interested, I said, in the fisheries. They're interested in the northern sea route. They're already engaging in that sense very closely with the Russians, call it an unholy alliance, whatever, but we are seeing on the fossil fuels engagement, we are seeing traffic on the northeastern sea route, and of course natural resources. They also have a coast guard cooperation with the Russians, which affects the Pacific. They have been visible in European waters. And Chinese maps...

show the Arctic region, the Arctic basin at the center of the maps and the Chinese are interested in the direct trans-polar connection between the Pacific and your Atlantic world. So how do you see and how have you experienced in your position

these developments of PRC Chinese activity in the Arctic, but notably also in Iceland and Greenland. Well, I'm no expert on Greenland and China, but I can say for Iceland that visible Chinese investment or interest is not that great. At the top of my head, I can recall a Northern Lights Research Center

financed to a large degree by the Chinese authorities, but it's more or less dormant to the best of my knowledge. Chinese investment in infrastructure in Iceland is not there in any degree. So unlike you can find some parts of the world where China has been an active player

But that is not the case in present-day Iceland. And of course, I am not speaking on behalf of the Icelandic government in any way, nor would I have been if I had been in the office I held. The government of Iceland determines Iceland's policy, not the head of state. And now I'm just a free man. So...

Of course, changes. Global warming, the melting of the Arctic ice changes everything. And there has been, for years and decades, an interest in developing the northern sea route, making it possible to sail from Southeast Asia to Europe via the northern route, the shorter route. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. I do know that shipping like this

is precise. You want to be in Rotterdam on Wednesday, not Friday, etc. And when the northern sea route is as it is, sometimes full of ice, sometimes not, you just cannot move to that lane. Ideas of building a big harbour in Iceland have been aired. I do remember early on

During my tenure there was an interest in building a big harbour in the north-eastern part of Iceland, but that was the Germans, not the Chinese, who were mostly interested. And it was more or less pie in the sky, in my opinion. And I was just observing it. So, of course, the changes, the actual climate change in the Arctic affects Iceland and makes everything different.

And interest in Chinese interest is obvious, but I must be honest about it that you do not see that on a day to day basis in Iceland. And it's nothing that sort of creates anxiety in Icelandic minds.

So now I'm coming to the anxious last question, and the audience can already start thinking what they are desperate to ask. But I cannot let you go without mentioning Donald Trump, right? So we talked about the disruptive war of Russia to the Arctic order, to the European order, to the world order. How disruptive is the most recent volatility erratic action? What do you want to call it, the behavior of Trump 2.0?

his administration, isolationist on the one hand, but very forceful rhetorically when it comes to the Arctic on the other. And let me just say a few things. So you spoke of Iceland as a NATO founding member, and you mentioned Denmark, Norway, so that comes into the picture. And NATO, of course, builds on several Rooseveltian tenets.

When we think of the expansive conception of American security going back to the 1940s, and it was in the national security interests of the United States in that view that the Americans would pursue cooperation and independence with allies big and small. Now, Trump has turned that viewpoint completely upside down because he has said he needs Greenland.

He wants to buy it. Actually, he doesn't just want to buy it. Two days ago, he said, I won't possibly take it, perhaps even by force, because I really, really need it and I want it. Right? So this has created a really awkward situation now because there's a Danish-American rift up to a point. And, of course, there are also issues between the Nordic states at large and the United States.

But it's also made the Greenlanders very, they just had the elections recently and the Americans tried to influence that. So my first pair of little questions in relation to that, in this mix, where do you see the future of Greenland? Do you see it closer to the Nordics or driving more the independence? And do you think this has repercussions for Iceland? What is Iceland's role? Would Iceland perhaps be a mediator, but a mediator between whom? America and Denmark?

or Greenland and Denmark, or Greenland and the United States, what could Iceland do? Well, hopefully just remain unnoticed in Washington, D.C. Iceland, like I mentioned in my talk, we have a defense agreement with the United States from 1951, still in force, but the Americans unilaterally left in 2006. Mostly they felt that it was not...

necessary for them to maintain a permanent military presence on that island in the middle of the North Atlantic. There's no threat to speak of there. And there have been no indications that they would like to reopen a military base in Iceland. And we would just have to have to tackle that if that question would ever arise. With

and American interest and determination for a military expert, an objective military expert. I think it would be obvious to conclude that U.S. defense interests can be safeguarded in Greenland within present arrangements. There must be something else that is in the back of the mind of the current U.S. president. Whether Iceland can play

any meaningful role there. I do not actually think so when it comes to the recurrent tension that is between the US and Denmark and Greenland. What I would hope is that the Greenlanders will be left in peace to determine their own future if it is so that we in Iceland, a nation of, well, how many are we now? It's me, the ambassador, Jón. 400,000 people.

If we have reached the conclusion for decades and still think so that we cannot guarantee our military security without an agreement with somebody else, then it would seem to me obvious that Greenland also needs a partner when it comes to security in a hostile world. So that, of course, will always be

a vital issue when it comes to the future of Greenland, how that huge country can secure its interests and how the security of Greenland can be guaranteed with the cooperation as it is now with the US. Why not? But what I would like to say in that regard finally is that

If you take a look at Iceland's development from being part of the Kingdom of Denmark to full independence, it's all about interdependence as well. We could never survive there on our own. We need alliances. We need cooperation with others. It's just a matter of how you

frame that and that will also be the case for our good friends and neighbors in Greenland. Should they aspire to independence, full independence like we did, they would most certainly, in my opinion, reach the same conclusion that we did, that independence and interdependence go hand in hand. It's just a question of how you frame it. And that's a constant issue. If you look at, if you could go back in time to say 1918 when Iceland became a sovereign state,

and tell Icelanders there who celebrated that independence, that step in sovereignty, and tell them, well, we're actually a member of something called the European Economic Union now, and we share sovereignty with others, and we're in a defense alliance with others. They would say, that's not sovereignty. We need to be on our own. Sovereignty and independence are evolving issues.

And if you want to be static in that determination or definition, then you're in for trouble. So we move and hopefully the Greenlanders will move along as well.

Well, I'll leave you on this optimistic note to the hands of the audience, but I think also in terms of climate change, of course, we need this interdependence. So on this happy note, I'll let the audience ask you questions, which definitely will kindly take over. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Goodni and Christina. We're now going to open the floor to questions from the audience, both here in the theater and those online. For those of you that are online, please type the questions into the Q&A box, and we'll try to answer as many as possible.

Please remember to include your name and affiliation. And for those of you that are in the audience, please raise your hand. I can see several hands already and I'll select them and some in rounds. Can you get that one on the left and then the one on the right there, the person closest to you and then on that one. Hi, I'm interrupting this event to tell you about another awesome LSE podcast that we think you'd enjoy.

LSE IQ asks social scientists and other experts to answer one intelligent question, like why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Or can we afford the super rich? Come check us out. Just search for LSE IQ wherever you get your podcasts. Now back to the event.

Hi, I'm Hannah Lein-Mathisen. I am an international relations student here at LSE and I'm from Norway. So I found this very interesting. And yes, as a Norwegian, I would definitely be interested in a discussion on if Eirik Ndraud is Norwegian or Icelandic. That's beside the point. My question regards Svalbard because you did mention briefly the Chinese interest in Svalbard. But given that the Svalbard Treaty obviously gives a lot of potential influence to both Russia and the U.S.,

over the area, even though it's Norwegian territory. I wonder how you think Norway should position themselves there, also given the situation in the Arctic Council with Russia? Thank you. Yeah, I mean, Norway and Russia, you're the expert here, not me, but Norway and Russia were able to resolve their differences, sensitive issues on how to define the line between Norwegian and Russian territory.

fishing limits, exclusive economic zone and the Svalbard island up north in the Arctic belongs to Norway but is under the Svalbard Treaty somewhat of a special case I can't really tell what the Icelandic position on that is I can't remember and I wouldn't be best to describe it actually much better going back in history on the Leib Eriksson issue if you want to

There's a Leif Erikson Day every year in the U.S., 9th of October, and there's a U.S. presidential proclamation. On this day, I hereby declare Leif Erikson Day to celebrate, et cetera, et cetera, the Nordic heritage in America. But once, in the 60s, they started this in the 60s, a diplomatic incident arose. Because the then president of the day, it must have been Lyndon Johnson,

His declaration went something like this. On this day, 9th of October, and the 9th of October is celebrated because on that day there was a Norwegian ship entering New York Harbor in 1825. The first Norwegian immigrants. Why unearthly Norwegians? The declaration read like this. On this day, Leif Erikson Day, we celebrate the achievements of Leif Erikson. He was son of Erik the Red. This brilliant Norwegian explorer. Hold on one second. Leif Erikson.

Leif the Lucky was Icelandic. There were diplomatic protests from the Icelandic embassy in Washington DC. Leif Erikson is Icelandic, not Norwegian, and this was a sensitive issue. So ever since, or mostly ever since, you will see, and this is a lesson in diplomacy, you will see this same declaration probably next October, but the last one was on 9th of October by Joe Biden,

that on this day we celebrate the achievements of this voyager Leif Erikson, son of Iceland and grandson of Norway. That's how to solve diplomatic disputes. That's also how to answer questions when you don't really know the answer. I'm no expert on Solveig, but Unskult. Next one.

Hello, my name is Jens. I study economic history here at LSE as a postgraduate. So I was just wondering if the Americans were to come again, would you be concerned by the Icelandic, you could say, sovereignty? And in that case, do you think, if you would be concerned, that Iceland would turn more to the European Union and in the end actually vote to go into the European Union on the long run? Mm-hmm.

Well, again, it's so difficult to predict what may or may not happen in the future. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in Washington has expressed an interest in increasing U.S. presence in Iceland. I think they are happy with things as they are now, and there is no reason not to. Iceland's membership, possible membership of the EU,

is an ongoing issue but it's not it's not the the issue in Icelandic politics if if I read correctly into that Iceland is a member of European Economic Area and that agreement has served Iceland fairly well I think it's safe to say

After the banking crisis in 2008, a new government in Iceland wanted to apply for membership, but it never reached the step of a referendum. And ever since, this has not been the issue in Iceland. But like you mentioned, Jens, if a clear and visible negative response

aggressive interest in Iceland would surface in Washington, D.C., an obvious response might be to have a closer look at how you can increase your ties with Europe. But this is just what if and possible and so on and so forth. But Iceland, of course, wants to maintain a good relationship with the EU. And so far, people on

both in Brussels and Reykjavik, have been fairly content, more or less, with things as they are. So let's just hope that that will continue. We have some more questions, please. In the middle and then on your right as well. Maybe in the middle there first and then on the right.

Good evening, Professor. I'm Ojas and I study politics and data science here at LSE. I was wondering, you highlighted in the context of small countries how they're dependent on other countries for economic cooperation or for defense treaties. So do you think it is possible for small countries to truly have sovereignty in the classical sense? Well, that was asked in 1944. There was a historian, a British historian, Alfred Coppin, who said, here we have this tiny island in the middle of the North Atlantic. I mean, it's

100,000, 130,000 people or something like that. And E.H. Carr, another famous historian, he said, this is the end of the nation state. Well, the optimistic, unifying, ex-presidential part of me will say, we proved them wrong. We showed them. We can do it. Yes, we can. And that is an important aspect. I think you can do both things. You can maintain your sovereignty, your independence, but of course...

you know, you are reliant on others as well. Like I said, independence and interdependence must go hand in hand. If independence means being completely unreliant on others, totally excluded from others, you will look around you and find a country in which you definitely do not want to live because that's not what independence is about. Independence is about making sure that you, uh,

can have the final say in most important matters, but at the same time, independence is about living with others. And a small nation like Iceland has done fairly well, I think. Like I said, we could never survive there on our own, not for a day, but we still feel we could do it on our own. Independence is part self-confidence, part self-illusion.

Did I say that out loud? Take one on the right there and then we have questions from the online audience after that one. Yeah, on the right over there. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. My name is Adli. I'm Danish. That's a small caveat. Welcome, my good friend. Thank you. I study history and international relations here. And accordingly, I have two questions, one international relations, one history.

My international relations question is how do you view the optimal role or the desirable role of the smaller Nordic Council states in the West Nordic and North Atlantic regions, so that would be Canada and what we might call the East Nordics, and do you think there's a

possibility of further collaboration, cooperation. My history question, which is very near and dear to my heart, I'm working on a graduate thesis on the Nordic countries' recognition of communist China. I was wondering if you as a historian of Icelandic diplomacy

can tell me anything about Iceland's recognition of Red China. I know it was discussed at the Nordic Ministers' Council in Reykjavik in, I think that was 1950, but that's what I know so far. Okay, thank you very much. Now on that second question, I can't really recall. Iceland's foreign policy was...

based on securing the country's self-interest. Naturally, it goes without saying, but you also want to do the right thing. You want to show sympathy with oppressed peoples around the world. So Iceland, within the United Nations, for instance, would support those who are fighting for self-determination and would support decolonization, with a few exceptions. We need to sell fish. So if that would upset Iceland,

that important aspects of Iceland's foreign policy, people would have to say, well, of course, we want to support those who are fighting for freedom, but we also want to sell our fish to Portugal. And of course, we want to support those who are fighting the Greek military junta, but we also want to sell fish to Greece. So I guess the same would be with

China and how you act there. Foreign policy of a small state involves securing your direct interest, but also trying to be a force for good in the world. I guess that same would account for the Nordic Council and how the Nordics or in the Arctic Council, how the Nordics can act there. We in the Nordic region like to see ourselves as altruistic and proponents of the good policy

And I should like to think that within the Arctic Council, Iceland and other Nordic countries have been advocating safeguarding the Arctic and its environment, making it free of military usage. And I would only hope that the Nordics would continue in that direction, because it is the sensible thing to do and it's also in our self-interest. So let's just hope that that will continue.

My colleague in the front will ask some questions from the online audience. Thank you. So I'm going to read a few questions from the online audience. The first is Anthony, who's an LSE alumni. And he said, with the historian and academic hats on, where truth and knowledge is important, how should the West Nordics tackle politicians like Trump and Putin and their followers who deny many facts, distort history and make up their own to impose on others?

Yeah, well, if I had a simple answer for that, I would be in a different position, I guess. Well, how? Yeah, we, well, we cannot give up, cannot stay silent. And phrases like alternative facts should not be accepted as just one way to say I'm lying and what the hell. But then we reach the world of

post-modernism and how you frame the eternal question of truth in history and facts. The fact of the matter is that in that region of the world, the West Nordic region, we have nations and peoples who want to be masters of their own destiny and you're not going to move away from a

one type of foreign rule you don't happen to like anymore, even though it may be altruistic and nice and whatever, to some kind of new economic military U.S. imperialism. That would be totally wrong direction. And I'm sure that my friends in the Faroe Islands and Greenland would agree on that.

And then we have another one from Sue, who refers to herself as an Alaskan questioner. And she said, would you like to comment on Iceland's resumption and then cessation of commercial whaling and how this has affected Iceland's relationship with Greenland? Yeah, whaling. God, I'm glad I'm no longer in office. It's no laughing matter for many people. Whaling is considered a cruel way to harness power.

natural resources and I totally sympathize with that argument. It's a tough one because you get so defensive when you in the West are telling us what to do and this goes for the Greenlanders as you think and the Faroe Islands more than us in Iceland. Whaling in Iceland has no, it doesn't matter at all

for economy or culture, whereas in the Faroe Islands and Greenland, it is a different matter. So I'm not going to answer for them, but what I would say in Iceland is that many people say that continued whaling, I am safe in saying that there will be no whaling conducted in Iceland this summer. It's just not considered beneficial in any way. So it's a moot issue in that sense, although there was some whaling last year.

What was I saying? Whaling, yes. People have been saying, unless you stop whaling, it will affect you. Tourism will stop. There will be people in Iceland saying, thank God. Tourism in Iceland has grown year after year after year, and whaling has not had any effect on that overall. So if you look at it in that sense, it's not an economical issue. What I would like to see is...

a decision internationally and uh but we haven't reached that point yet great thank you we have some more questions from our audience in the theater um we have one here and then there's two in the middle this person in the front yeah thank you thank you for a very interesting conversation um

I'm an evolutionary biologist, so my history goes 140,000 years and beyond. But in terms of what you're describing with the current position, political position with US and stuff, seems like history tells us that the powerful always are able to subjugate the weak.

the period of last 80 years is an aberration in history rather than the norm. In that sense, do you think the current US administration position is an aberration that will correct itself and the world order will go back to what it was two years ago? Or do you think there's a shift in US worldview which is fundamental? I don't know. That would be the best answer.

Thucydides, that's the way you pronounce it in Icelandic, Thucydides, who said, you know, on the Peloponnesian War that the strong will conquer the weak and the weak just have to suffer. But the world, fortunately, has been moving from that in the 20th century at least, where power has become much more elusive and soft power and restraints on power have become more visible. That's why we were able to beat Britain during the Cold Wars.

the fishing disputes when Britain had the might of the Royal Navy, but could not really use that to any effective degree because you wouldn't just use fire at a NATO ally. And we benefited from that, certainly. I would like to hope, the optimistic that you have to be, that the international order will develop in the direction of

of respect for international law, respect for international borders, the respect for democracy and freedom, and a system where the mighty cannot just use force at will. Of course, it remains to be seen. And I just cannot believe

that Greenland, for instance, will be some kind of a litmus test in this regard. I know that we've seen unbelievable scenes in recent years when it comes to the US and Washington DC, but the idea of using like military force to enforce your will in Greenland, I just, it cannot happen. It must not happen and surely it will not happen.

That's how I see it. But one good thing about being a historian is that you look back and reflect and gain information and you might be tempted or you might be thinking that this is the worst of times. But I would not agree there. I happen to be looking at the 1970s now in my research. The 1970s were not necessarily that much better than our current situation.

So let's put things in perspective, be on guard and be willing to safeguard what we have achieved so far. We went nowhere near a perfect place and there's never been. But let's not get too pessimistic as we look at the present situation. And I think

On many fronts, you can see that the world is a much better place now, even with the current situation as it is, than it was a few decades ago. So maintain some optimism there. Time for one last question. The person that has the mic in the middle somewhere.

About geography? Yeah, a kind of conflict of interest. But they pushed that aside. So I was just wondering. So at the moment, there's quite a large conflict as to what the Arctic should be used for. And I was just wondering, do you believe, as part of the Arctic states, that

the use of the Arctic can be used sustainably for scientific development without hindering the environment and leading to environmental degradation. Yeah, that's it. Like take the Greenlanders for instance. They want to develop and strengthen their economy just like any other people would like to. At the same time one would hope that they would not be willing to

drill wherever it is possible to drill or mine wherever it's possible to mine and in that way generate income for their society. So I would hope that in their future deliberations and current deliberations, they will be able to weigh together the advantages of harnessing natural resources, but at the same time protecting

their sensitive, invaluable nature. And this is of course what applies to Iceland as well and all the countries for that matter. So the utilization of natural resources in the Arctic is of course a key issue and a reason for increased interest among others. You can see

interested parties far and near wanting to use natural resources in that region, but I would hope that common sense will prevail there and the long-term view that the price in the Arctic lies in making sure that we do not make damage there for good because we owe that to future generations. You cannot just take the short-sighted view, even though

you sense some short-term benefits there. So the future of the Arctic lies in sustainable development, it lies in protection of nature, and I should hope that the way to secure that is to have the future of the Arctic in the hands of the people of the Arctic, not some outright interests. Thank you. It's been a pleasure to listen to you both.

this evening. I want to thank you for your time, for taking part, and for taking time to present your views. I also want to thank members of our audience, both in person and online, for joining us, particularly those of you that submitted questions to our panelists. We'll now be hosting a reception in the foyer immediately outside the theater, so if you can, please do stay and join us and speak to members of the panel. Otherwise, we look forward to seeing you at future LSE events. Thank you all for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for listening. You can subscribe to the LSE Events podcast on your favourite podcast app and help other listeners discover us by leaving a review. Visit lse.ac.uk forward slash events to find out what's on next. We hope you join us at another LSE Events soon.