Some Icelanders are upset at the military garb and equipment of their peacekeepers in Afghanistan.
Amir Shah/Associated Press
Posted on 12/20/2004 4:15:39 PM PST by 68skylark
REYKJAVIK, Iceland - In a country without an army, where even the police officers carry no weapons, the news of an attack in Kabul, Afghanistan, in late October reverberated with the force of a sudden gunshot.
It was not just that three Icelandic peacekeepers had been wounded in a suicide bombing in an area known as being dangerous to foreigners. What was almost more disturbing were the television images beamed back from the scene, showing the peacekeepers armed and dressed in full military gear, apparently in contradiction of their strictly civilian status.
Advertisement
The incident touched off an unusual round of soul-searching in this pacifist nation. Was Iceland, which carefully avoids becoming directly involved in overseas hostilities, gradually slipping into combat mode? Were its peacekeepers really becoming soldiers?
The center-right coalition government hastily explained that although the peacekeepers in Kabul were under the command of NATO, they had not been acting in a military capacity, and had worn military clothing and carried weapons merely for protection in a dangerous place.
But that did not mollify critics on the left, particularly when they learned that the peacekeepers had been hurt while apparently on a mission to buy a rug for a commanding officer in Kabul's notorious Chicken Street, crowded that day with Afghan shoppers. It appeared, too, that they had attracted the bomber's attention by lingering too long, and too ostentatiously. While the Icelanders' injuries were minor, a young Afghan girl and a woman, an American translator, were killed.
Stefan Palsson, chairman of the Campaign Against Military Bases, a peace group, said the images shocked a lot of people, particularly older Icelanders raised in a strictly nonmilitary tradition. "Icelanders used to be proud of not having an army," he said. Mr. Palsson said the peacekeeping force is in danger of becoming an army in all but name. "It acts like one, it is part of the army system, and the peacekeepers have weapons, wear uniforms and undertake duties similar to the soldiers working next to them," he said.
Iceland is a tiny country - population about 290,000 - with both a deeply felt tradition of pacifism and a foreign policy based on the notion of peaceful international cooperation.
In World War II, the country put its defense in the hands of Britain and the United States in exchange for their use of its land for military bases. But many Icelanders feel deeply uneasy about entering into any alliance with military undertones. When Iceland's Parliament voted in 1949 to allow it to become a charter member of NATO, thousands of protesters massed in the streets, throwing stones through the windows in what, for Iceland, constituted a riot.
The government's decision in 1951 to allow the United States to build an air force base near the Keflavik airport - in exchange, again, for taking over Iceland's defense - was greeted with widespread dismay by the left. The existence of the base, and the country's relationship with the United States, became one of the most divisive issues in Iceland during the cold war.
The peacekeeping force, made up only of about 30 civilian volunteers, was formed in the mid-1990's as a direct result of the government's desire to have Iceland play a larger role in world affairs.
"The main emphasis is that, according to our size, we should share the burden and accept the responsibilities for peace, even though this is on a small scale," explained Illugi Gunnarsson, the political adviser to the foreign minister. "We don't have an army but would like to contribute toward these peacekeeping efforts and provide civilian help. We are members of NATO and we think we should try to pull our weight."
Icelandic peacekeepers are currently stationed in Kabul, Sri Lanka and Kosovo, where they provide air traffic control and work as doctors, nurses, firefighters and police officers. The peacekeepers are experts in their fields but not in serving in war-torn regions; before they are posted, they receive just two weeks or so of training from the Norwegian military.
Mr. Gunnarsson said they were most certainly not soldiers.
"There's always this element of danger when you're operating in a military environment and are subject to a certain amount of contact with the military, but we have never regarded them as being soldiers," he said.
But Ogmundur Jonasson, chairman of the left-green political group in the Icelandic Parliament, argued that "the dividing line between an army and a peacekeeping force is becoming very blurred" - a perception supported by public opinion polls taken after the Kabul incident.
Polls have also shown that about half the population supports the presence of Iceland's peacekeepers in places like Kabul. But Icelanders were overwhelmingly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, despite their government's support for it, and there is an unease among some that the country's peacekeepers are serving as little more than what Mr. Jonasson called a "cleanup team" for the United States.
"We want Iceland to be giving a helping hand in parts of the world other than where the Americans have been fighting," Mr. Jonasson said.
Allies of the government say the country is merely living up to international obligations that are becoming harder and more serious as the world situation darkens.
"We supported the U.N. decision to overthrow a regime of terrorists in Afghanistan and now we are trying to build up a civil society, and I think it is noble work," said Einar R. Gudfinsson, leader of the parliamentary group for the Independence Party, the country's conservatives.
Mr. Palsson, the pacifist, said that as NATO became more aggressive militarily and the relationship between peacekeepers and the military became more murky, peacekeepers like the Icelanders were more likely to be targets of violence.
"NATO has blurred the distinction between military operations and humanitarian and peacekeeping operations in the last five or six years," he said. "That is one of the reasons why we've seen humanitarian organizations more and more becoming legitimate targets in conflicts all over the world."
But Jon Hakon Magnusson, chairman of the Association for Western Cooperation, a pro-NATO group, said Iceland's peacekeepers had undoubtedly learned from the bombing in Kabul. Among other things, he said, they should probably have asked for a military escort if they planned to go to a place like Chicken Street.
"We are pretty innocent and we have never been in danger zones - we trust that everybody is nice like we are," Mr. Magnusson said. "I think we learned our lesson."
Of the peacekeepers, he said, "They're going to be extremely careful from now on."
Some Icelanders are upset at the military garb and equipment of their peacekeepers in Afghanistan.
Amir Shah/Associated Press
I'm not sure what this A-hole means with the word "legitimate." I hope it's just a poor choice of a word from someone who doesn't speak English as a first language -- not his actual opinion.
Maybe a dumb question form a civilian but, if there is no military in Icelend, where did these guys get the training to handle their equipment and weapons? If they don't have any training why to they have weapons?
We are shutting down the AF station in Iceland. That means we are pulling those 4 Jets away.
Of course the Icelanders are upset about that since it will cost jobs.
I went there a few months ago. It is probably the most epensive place I can think of.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and qvaks like a duck.....
Only the NY Times could write this article in such a studious tone. Running around in a blue helment may signify to the NY Times, the Icelanders and the folks in Brussels that you are a "Peacekeeper", but to those belligerants who don't want to be kept peaceful that blue helmet means "target".
Not everyone in the world is as peaceful and cooperative as the good (stone throwing) citizens of Iceland. That would be nice, but that's not the way things are!
Yeah, only the NY Times would write an article like this -- fretting about the view from the left. Most normal Americans would laugh at Iceland's pacifism -- or look upon those leftists with scorn for their refusal to defend western values.
What a bunch of Viking sissies.
Thor must be rolling in his grave.
Nothing like violently asserting your pacifism!
None of them are wearing helmets.
I'll bet those guys are proud as punch at finally getting to do something that makes them vaguely resemble a man.
Yeah, that's a good point.
"Icelanders used to be proud of not having an army," he said.
You can stick your head in the sand but in the end it comes back to bite you. Wake up Iceland. You are just as capable of being attacked as anyone else.
So Icelanders with your 30 man peacekeeping force, pray that some future US president does not decide to "score" points with the "world community" by turning your iceberg over to the islamofascist international terror groups.
Those are Norwegians, not Icelanders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.