Gissurarson delivering his paper in Viljandi.

RNH’s Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, read a paper 29 June 2016 to a conference on “Totalitarianism, Deportation and Emigration”, held in the Estonian village Viljandi by the Platform of European Memory and Conscience.

Professor Gissurarson’s paper was about two Germans in Iceland before the 2nd World War, the Jewess Henny Goldstein Ottosson and the Nazi Bruno Kress, whose lives were intertwined in some unexpected ways. Before the War their paths did not cross much in Iceland, even if sources claim that Kress had, like other German Nazis, been unfriendly to the Jewish refugees in the country. But there was another connection. The SS operated a “research institute”, Ahnenerbe or Ancestral Heritage, which gave Kress a grant to study Icelandic. Another topic in which Ahnenerbe took interest was the physiology of Jews: Henny Goldstein’s brother was picked up by Ahnenerbe “experts” at Auschwitz and brought to the Natzweiler prison camp where he was measured and then murdered. (After the War, the Ahnenerbe Director was hanged.) Her first husband, Robert Goldstein, and her sister-in-law and nephew were all murdered in Auschwitz. After the War the paths of Henny Goldstein and Bruno Kress crossed again, unexpectedly, in Iceland. Now Kress had become a communist, residing in East Germany, and in the spring of 1958 he was invited to the 60th birthday party of Icelandic communist leader Brynjolfur Bjarnason. There, to her great surprise, Henny Goldstein recognised the man who had been a zealous Nazi in Iceland before the War and complained about it. The incident was hushed down however. Kress was given an honorary doctorate from the University of Iceland on its 75th anniversary in 1986.

A lively discussion followed the paper, with some in the audience expressing surprise at the fact that the University of Iceland had given an old Nazi an honorary doctorate. Other speakers at the conference included Vytautas Landsbergis, former President of Lithuania, and Urmas Reinsalu, the Estonian Minister of Justice. Professor Gissurarson’s contribution to the conference formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe of the Victims”. At the conference, the annual Prize of the Platform was awarded to Leopoldo López, the leader of the opposition in Venezuela and now a political prisoner. López’ father received the award on his behalf. Here López speaks in Oslo, before his imprisonment:

Slides of Gissurarson Paper Viljandi 29 June 2016

Cartoon by Halldor Petursson of the three different incarnations of the radical left movement in Iceland.

RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor of Politics at the University of Iceland, read a paper at a conference organised by the Icelandic Association of Political Scientists 16 June 2016. The paper was on why the Icelandic Left was smaller and more radical than in the Scandinavian countries. (By the Left Professor Gissurarson meant the combined electoral support support of social democrats and communists: In Iceland, they traditionally constituted about one-third of the voters, but about one-half in Sweden, Denmark and Norway.) A plausible explanation why the Left was small in Iceland was, Professor Gissurarson contended, that in the formative years of party politics Iceland was not as industrialised and urbanised as the Scandinavian countries, while the still vivid legacy from the independence struggle also hampered the Icelandic Left.

But why was the Icelandic Left so radical? Why did communists or left socialists in the early 1940s surpass the social democrats in the race for votes? An answer often given is that their leaders, Brynjolfur Bjarnason and Einar Olgeirsson, were astute politicians. But Professor Gissurarson commented that it was by no means evident that they were any abler than the social democratic leaders, Jon Baldvinsson, Haraldur Gudmundsson, and Stefan Johann Stefansson.

Professor Gissurarson suggested that probably the Socialist Unity Party in Iceland, formed in 1938  and dominated by communists, was more akin to the Finnish People’s Democratic League, formed in 1944 and also dominated by communists, than to the Scandinavian communist parties, for three reasons. First, Finland and Iceland had in early 20th century been much poorer than the three Scandinavian countries. Second, they had both been new states, Finland declaring her independence in 1917 and Iceland becoming a sovereign state in 1918. Third, civil society, with its invisible institutions, customs and traditions, had been less developed there than in the three Scandinavian countries, and therefore the ground had been more fertile to the seeds of revolution. Both the Icelandic Socialist Unity Party and the Finnish People’s Democratic League had electoral support of around 15–20% in the 1940s and 1950s.

Professor Gissurarson also pointed out that the Icelandic left socialists had enjoyed significant financial support from Moscow and that Icelandic voters, living in a very peaceful country, had been, and still are, somewhat naive, not taking the revolutionary rhetoric of the communists seriously. It was however clear, he said, that the Icelandic communist party of 1930–1938, and the Socialist Unity Party of 1938–1968 were both controlled by hardcore stalinists. Their supporters often resorted to street violence to further their aims, and the leaders had a close relationship with Moscow. On this, Professor Gissurarson referred to his book on the Icelandic communist movement. The People’s Alliance, an electoral alliance in 1956–1968 in which the Socialist Unity Party participated, and a political party after that, was more ambivalent about world communism. It did not have any official ties with Soviet communists, while it cultivated some other communist parties: For example, the last act of the party was to accept an invitation to send a delegation in 1998 to the Cuban communist party.

Professor Gissurarson’s lecture formed a part of the joint project by RNH and AECR on “Europe of the Victims”, where the goal is not to forget the words and deeds, or misdeeds, of communists and other 20th century totalitarians. Professor Gissurarson is the editor of a series of historical works on the struggle in Iceland against totalitarian communism. The books already published include articles on communism (Greinar um kommunisma) by Bertrand Russell, memoirs of Stalin’s prison camps (Konur i thraelakistum Stalins) by Elinor Lipper and Aino Kuusinen, and Out of the Night (Ur alogum) by Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs).

RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave a talk at a Reykjavik luncheon meeting of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs 16 June 2016. It formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism”. Here are the main points of the talk:

Determinants of Iceland’s Foreign Policy: 1) tiny nation which cannot defend herself; 2) far from being self-sufficient, need for markets; 3) location in mid-North Atlantic Ocean, immediate neighbours Norway, Great Britain, Canada, the US, 4) culturally part of the West and the North

874 First settler from Western Norway, most settlers from Norway

930 Foundation of Commonwealth, the rule of law without government

1000 Discovery of America, oral tradition confirmed by archeological findings

1022 First treaty with Norwegian king, mutual rights

1262 Covenant reluctantly made with Norwegian king: dependency or tributary state

1355–1374 Ruled by the King of Sweden, not Norway (shows tenuous links with Norway)

1380 Ruled by the King of Denmark, as Norway and Denmark enter a personal union

1412 First recorded English fishing vessel; becomes an important part of English fisheries

Henry VIII refused three offers to buy Iceland

1518 Danish king offered Iceland to Henry VIII as collateral for 50,000 gold florins loan (=$6.5 million). Two more offers, in 1524 and 1535

1490–1602 Consolidation of royal prerogatives in Iceland; foreigners excluded, monopoly trade

1627 Uselessness of Danish “shelter” exposed: Muslim raids without any defence

1645 Danish king offered Iceland to Hamburg merchants for 500,000 thalers (=$6.4 million).

1785 Danish officials seriously discuss evacuating the Icelanders to other parts of the realm, as a result of volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and the “Mist Famine”

1785–1813 Several suggestions by British individuals that the UK seize Iceland; little interest

1814 Iceland not included when Sweden gets Norway as compensation for Finland. Why? Probably decision by the UK: Wanted Iceland controlled by a weak power, but had no interest in ruling her directly, tacit protection in the following century by British Navy

Jon Sigurdsson, leader of Iceland’s independence struggle

1848 Jon Sigurdsson calls for self-rule and sovereignty, using three arguments: 1) Iceland always sovereign; 2) Distinct culture and language; 3) Local knowledge

1855 Freedom of trade

1868 US government plans to purchase Iceland from Denmark, like Louisiana from France and Alaska from Russia; proponents William H. Seward and Robert J. Walker; laughed out of Congress

1876 last year when export of agricultural products exceeds that of marine products in value

1914–1918 UK government practically takes over Iceland, British consul controls foreign trade; direct trade negotiations between the UK and Iceland (still a Danish dependency); uselessness of Danish “shelter” demonstrated yet again

1918 Denmark grants Iceland sovereignty, independent kingdoms in personal union

1940 UK occupies Iceland

Iceland 1967: US Ambassador Karl Rolvaag, Icelandic Prime Minister Bjarni Benediktsson (who signed the North Atlantic treaty in 1949 and the Defence Treaty with the US in 1951) and astronaut Neil Armstrong, training for his journey.

1941 US and Iceland conclude a defence agreement, Monroe line drawn east of Iceland, Churchill visits

1949 Iceland joins NATO, strategically important in Cold War

1951 Defence Treaty with US, still in force

1952–76, four extensions of fisheries limits, Cod Wars with the UK, tacit support by the US

2006 US unilaterally abandons military base in Iceland

2008 Iceland left out in the cold, no help from US which however helps Switzerland and Sweden (never allies); severe blow from UK government, closing British banks owned by Icelanders while assisting all other British banks; putting an Icelandic bank and, briefly, also Central Bank and Finance Ministry on list of terrorist organisations; contributes to total collapse

2009 Disillusioned with old friends and allies, majority of Parliament decides to apply for EU membership; but “negotiations” stall: Iceland’s fisheries well-run, CFP disaster

2006–16 Iceland alone, expendable, unwanted, unprotected (except by US and NATO declarations), as in 1518–1868

Two future options, North Atlantic or European; not mutually exclusive. Terms:

1) continued access to European market, but also trade with US, Canada, China, Russia, etc.

2) continued independent currency, but deal with the UK or US on convertibility and lender-of-last-resort facilities (permanent currency swap deals)

3) rejuvenated military cooperation with US, adding UK and Norway to the equation

Prof. Gissurarson gives his talk in Rio de Janeiro.

In April 2016, RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave three papers at regional conferences of the Brazilian Students for Liberty, Estudantes pela liberdade: 16 April in Rio de Janeiro, 23 April in Belo Horizonte and 30 April in the university city of Santa Maria in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. In all three papers he discussed the controversial ideas of French economist Thomas Piketty who suggests expropriatory taxes on high-income groups and people of property in order to make income distribution more equal. Gissurarson pointed out the strange fact that Piketty worried about people becoming rich, whereas philosophers such as John Rawls had worried about people remaining poor: Unlike affluence, poverty was a real problem. Globalisation, or the extension of international trade, had had two consequences: a group in possession of special, non-reproducible abilities (Piketty’s famous 1%) could now sell these abilities in a much larger market; and hundreds of millions of people in China and India had migrated out of poverty. Therefore, somewhat paradoxically, income distribution in the West had perhaps become somewhat less equal in the past decades, whereas in the world as a whole it had become more equal. Gissurarson also asked what was indeed wrong with unequal income distribution, if it was the result of free choice. If Milton Friedman visited Iceland and charged each person attending his lecture there $100, and if 500 people showed up, then income distribution would become less equal: Friedman would be $50,000 richer and 500 persons would each be $100 poorer. Everybody would however be more satisfied. Where was the injustice to be found?

Estudantes pela liberdade has become a very influential association in Brazilian universities and is in the forefront of the campaign against the endemic corruption in the country. Gissurarson’s lectures formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland, and the Future of Capitalism”.

Gissurarson Slides in Rio de Janeiro 16 April 2016

Prof. Gissurarson at Manhattanville College.

RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave a lecture at a conference on economic freedom in Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York, 8–9 April 2016, on economic freedom in Iceland 930–2016. He discussed the institutions of the Icelandic Commonwealth, including the choice between chieftains (or protection agencies), and grazing rights in the mountain pastures which solved to some extent the common pool problem. He also tried to explain why the Icelanders suffered hunger and famines for centuries even if there was plenty of fish in the Icelandic waters. Furthermore, he analysed the Icelandic system of individual transferable quotas in the fisheries which has made them both sustainable and profitable, unlike fisheries in most other countries. Last year, the University of Iceland Press published Professor Gissurarson’s The Icelandic Fisheries: Sustainable and Profitable. Finally, Professor Gissurarson briefly compared the market capitalism developed in Iceland in 1991–2004 and the crony capitalism replacing it, contributing to the complete collapse of the banking sector in 2008.

At the conference, Professor Gissurarson participated in a panel on money and central banks with Dr. Warren Coats, former head of the SDR (Special Drawing Rights) section of the IMF, Dr. Arthur Gandolfi, former Citibank Vice President, and Professor James Lothian of Fordham University, who served for two and a half decades as Editor of the Journal of International Money and Finance. Professor Gissurarson gave an account of his experience as a member of the Overseeing Board of the Central Bank of Iceland in 2001–9 and shared his conclusions about the proper monetary order for a small and open economy like Iceland. Gissurarson’s participation in the conference formed a part of the joint project of RNH and AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland, and the Future of Capitalism”.

Prof. Lothian of Fordham, Dr. Gandolfi of Citibank, Dr. Coats of the IMF og Prof. Gissurarson. Lothian and Coats both received their Ph.Ds in monetary economics under Milton Friedman.

Gissurarson Slides in Manhattanville 8 April 2016

RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave a lecture at the Icelandic-American Chamber of Commerce in New York 7 April 2016, on Iceland and the Anglo-Saxon Powers. Professor Gissurarson described the relationship between Iceland and Great Britain from 1412 when the first English fishing vessels appeared in Icelandic waters until 2008 when the British Labour government invoked an anti-terrorism law against Iceland and brought about, or at least contributed to, the Icelandic bank collapse. He discussed a few Britons who had an impact on Icelandic history, including Sir Joseph Banks, a great friend and benefactor of Iceland, Sir Eric Cable, British Consul during the First World War (who practically ruled the country), and two Labour leaders, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, and the actions that the two of them took against Iceland. Professor Gissurarson also analysed the relationship between Iceland and the United States, the 1941 Defence Agreement (whereby a US military force replaced the UK occupation force), the 1951 Defence Treaty (which established a US military base in Iceland), the 2006 departure of the US military force and the almost total lack of interest shown since then by US officials about the fate of Iceland. His conclusion was that nevertheless Iceland should seek closer cooperation with her neighbours in the North Atlantic, the US, Canada, Norway and the UK.

After the lecture, Professor Gissurarson attended a dinner with Einar Gunnarsson, Icelandic Ambassador to the UN, prominent banker Thor Thors (son of Thor Thors, longtime Icelandic Ambassador to the US) and others. Ambassador Gunnarsson was Permanent Secretary in the Icelandic Foreign Office during the bitter dispute between Iceland and the UK in 2009–10. The lecture formed a part of the joint project by RNH and AECR, the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, on “Europe, Iceland, and the Future of Capitalism”.