At a well-attended 30 January 2014 meeting jointly organised by RNH, the Europe Watch and the Institute of International Affairs at the University of Iceland, the British political commentator Dr Richard North suggested that the United Kingdom should consider joining the European Economic Area, with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, rather than to remain in the EU. The truth of the matter was, according to Dr North, that the British had much more control of their own affairs outside the EU than inside it. They could as the Norwegians and the Icelanders influence the legal framework in the fields in which they had a special interest. This legal framework was anyway being developed in an international process rather than solely within a EU context.

Dr North reminded his audience that a national referendum on EU membership had been proposed in the UK. The most likely outcome was that the UK should leave the EU. The British wanted to control their own affairs, not to accept directives from Brussels. It would however be better to leave the EU immediately, but to continue to trade normally with the EU countries. The most obvious way of doing so would be to use the legal and regulatory framework under which the Norwegians and Icelanders worked. North spent a few days in Iceland doing research, interviewing representatives of Icelandic agriculture and fisheries on their position towards the EU.

North’s lecture provoked much discussion in Iceland, with leading daily Morgunbladid publishing an interview with the British guest 30 January 2014 and the Icelandic Broadcasting Service reporting on his message 31 January. The attendees at the lecture included the Rt Hon Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs. Bjorn Bjarnason, former Minister of Education and Minister of Justice, on whose initiative Dr North visited Iceland, blogged about his lecture and responded to criticisms of it—by people who had neither listened to the lecture nor read it. Dr North himself blogged on his Iceland visit which included a “Golden Circle” tour and interviews with representatives of Icelandic agriculture and fisheries.

From left: Skafti Hardarson, Lindy Vopnfjord (Icelandic-Canadian), Igor Gembitsky from IHS and Gisli Hauksson.

Gisli Hauksson, chairman of the RNH board, and Skafti Hardarson, chairman of the Icelandic Taxpayers’ Association, attended the annual New York Freedom Dinner of the Atlas Foundation 14 November 2013. Atlas Foundation is an international network of research institutes exploring spontaneous or freely evolved solutions to social problems rather than commands from above; their research focuses on the alternative of pricing to that of taxing and planning. Sir Antony Fisher, a relentless fighter for peace, free trade and low taxes, established the Atlas network which includes the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute in London and the Cato Institute in Washington DC, all of which are in cooperation with RNH. Before the dinner, a special Liberty Forum was held for two days on how to organise and run institutes and grassroots organisations in defence of taxpayers and consumers. Historian Leonard Liggio who turned eighty this year, was honoured at the Forum; he attended the famous Ludwig von Mises seminar at New York University more than fifty years ago. Another Mises disciple, Professor Israel Kirzner, gave a talk at the Forum; his main research topic has been the contribution of entrepreneurs to the creative powers of capitalism. At the Liberty Forum, the Antony Fisher International Award was presented, $25,000, to Professor Ning Wang for a book which he co-authored with Professor Ronald Coase, the Nobel Laureate in Economics, on How China Became Capitalist. The main message there is that the economic development of China can be attributed to individual entrepreneurship rather than government guidance.

The keynote address at the Freedom Dinner was given by Swedish historian and writer Johan Norberg, who argued that increased economic freedom in recent years — or “capitalism” as it is often called — had produced astonishing improvements in living standards and in general human well-being around the world. Here is the introduction of Norberg by Dr. Tom Palmer — a friend of Iceland and a frequent visitor — and then his address:

Brad Lips, the chief executive officer of Atlas Foundation, presented the John Templeton Prize, $100,000, for the greatest contribution to the cause of liberty in the last year. The winner was the British Taxpayers’ Alliance on whose behalf Matthew Sinclair, the director of the TA, received the prize. Here is the prize presentation and Sinclair’s acceptance speech:

Lord Lamont in Budapest. Photo: Pócza Kálmán.

The Lord Lamont of Lerwick, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1990–3, said in Budapest at a conference on the 2008 international financial crisis 15 November 2013 that invoking the anti-terrorism law against Iceland, as the British Labour government then did, was “a disgrace”. He added that he wanted to apologise on behalf of all those British citizens who sought to treat Iceland fairly. Lord Lamont asked for the floor after a lecture by Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson where he described how the British Labour government had closed the two Icelandic-owned banks in London, five minutes before it presented an immense rescue package for all other banks in Britain, and how that government had invoked the anti-terrorism law against one of the Icelandic banks with the consequence that all other Icelandic businesses and institutions were paralysed in their hour of greatest need for help.

Gissurarson in Budapest. Photo Pócza Kálmán.

In his lecture, Professor Gissurarson had rejected some common explanations of the 2008 Icelandic bank collapse, such as that the regulatory framework had been less stringent in Iceland than in other European countries, and that the banks had become too big and that the Icelandic bankers had been reckless. The Professor pointed out that the regulatory framework was the same as in other member countries of the European Economic Area, EEA, and that the relative size of the banking sector was similar in Iceland to that in Belgium, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and that bankers in other countries had proven quite reckless—indeed so reckless, that they had to be bailed out at an enormous cost to the taxpayers, with the help of the American Federal Reserve System which injected a lot of money into the European financial system. Professor Gissurarson said that in 2008 the Icelandic banking sector had been particularly vulnerable because of two systemic risks. First, cross-ownership was extensive in the Icelandic economy, and in the second place, the field of operations for the Icelandic banks was, because of the EEA agreement, much greater than their field of institutional support which turned out, in the end, to be Iceland alone. Into this already vulnerable sitution three crucial decisions entered and brought about the collapse: the refusal of the American Federal Reserve System to make the same kind of currency swap deals with Iceland’s central bank as it made with the central banks of the three Scandinavian countries, Sweden, Denmark and Norway; the decision of the British Labour government to close the Icelandic-owned banks in London while all other banks were saved by an immense rescue package; and the invoking of the anti-terrorism law against Iceland—an old ally which did not even have a military force. Those three decisions still had to be fully explained.

Speakers at the Budapest conference, organised by John O’Sullivan of the Danube Institute, included, besides Lord Lamont and Professor Gissurarson, Professor Péter Ákos Bod, former Governor of Hungary’s Central Bank, Professor Antonio Martino, Italy’s former Foreign Minister (1994–5) and Defence Minister (2001–6), Peter Wallison, former counsel to President Ronald Reagan and author of the dissent from the majority report of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and Jack Hollihan, chairman of Litchfield Holdings and former head of global project and asset based finance and leasing at Morgan Stanley. Wallison argued that the financial crisis was largely caused by misguided government policies, not least the legal requirement to extend mortgages to various groups with little or no ability to pay. Hollihan said that it had been a great mistake to let Lehman Brothers go under, soon after Bear Sterns was in effect bailed out. Martino criticized the idea of a common currency for the 28 different states of the European Union, and issued a stern warning against the dream of Brussels bureaucrats to create a new superpower, a rival to rather than an ally of the United States. While Bod did not fully share Martino’s scepticism about the euro, he maintained that Hungary was not ready for it. Professor Gissurarson’s participation in the Budapest conference formed a part of the joint project by RNH and AECR on “Europe, Iceland and the Future of Capitalism”. Here is Professor Gissurarson’s lecture on Youtube:

In the Hague 12 November 2013, the application of RNH, the Icelandic Research Centre for Innovation and Economic Growth, to join the Platform of European Memory and Conscience was accepted. Formed in 2011 in response to the resolutions by the European Council and the European Parliament in memory of victims of totalitarianism, Nazism and communism, the Platform held its annual meeting in the Hague. At the meeting, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson gave a presentation on the joint RNH-AECR project, “Europe of the Victims: Remembering Communism”. He explained the two reasons why the emphasis was on communism rather than Nazism. First, the evil of Nazism had firmly entered the Western consciousness at the end of the 2nd World War, when photographs and films of the extermination camps were shot and shown. In the second place, the Icelandic communist movement was relatively strong, and still had its defenders.

Professor Gissurarson gave an account of the major events in the project. Many distinguished scholars and authors had visited Iceland: Professor Bent Jensen, the foremost Danish author on the Nordic communist movement, Professor Niels Erik Rosenfeldt, a Danish specialist on the Comintern and the author of a thorough examination in two volumes of its secret apparatus, Professor Oystein Sorensen, a Norwegian expert on totalitarian ideology, Professor Stéphane Courtois, editor of the seminal 1997 Black Book of Communism, Anna Funder, Australian author of much-acclaimed Stasiland, Dr. Pawel Ukielski, deputy director of the Warsaw Museum of the 1944 Rising, Dr. Mart Nuut,, historian and member of Estonian Parliament, and Dr. Andreja Zver, director of Slovenian Institute of National Reconciliation. Moreover, a photo exhibition on “International Communism and Iceland” was held at the National Library of Iceland 23 August to 16 September 2013, with many historic photographs from domestic and foreign photo libraries and private archives.

Gissurarson in the Hague 12 November. Photo: Karl Altau.

Professor Gissurarson also gave an outline of two lectures that he had held himself in connection with the project. First, he read a paper in November 2012 in defence of Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, authors of the famous biography, Mao: The Unknown Story. An Icelandic employee of the present Chinese dictatorship had published a long attack on their work in Saga, the journal of the Icelandic Historical Association, while the book was still being translated into Icelandic. The second lecture was delivered in October 2013 on “Different Nations — Shared Experiences”, where Professor Gissurarson compared the fates of Iceland and the three Baltic countries. They all became sovereign states in 1918; they were all occupied in the Spring of 1940, Iceland by the British, the Baltic countries by the Soviets; in all four countries, the foreign army based there was replaced by another one in the Summer of 1941, in Iceland by the US, and in the Baltic countries by the German Nazis; all four countries became republics in 1944, Iceland by severing the last ties to the Danish king, and the Baltic countries by being forced to become Soviet republics.

Seminar in the Hague 12 November 2013. Courtois 1st from left, Landsbergis 1st from right.

At the Platform annual meeting, Kurt Schrimm, director of the Central Office for the investigation of National Socialist Crimes, gave a guest lecture on the Demjanjuk case. In connection with the meeting, a seminar was held in the Huis De Boskant in the Hague, on the roots of totalitarianism. There, Stéphane Courtois pointed out that Lenin had been the first one to try the implement the totalitarian idea of a complete recreation of society and of a new man. In fact, Stalin and Hitler and even Mussolini had been his disciples in this regard. Other participants in the panel were Vytautas Landsbergis, former President of Lithuania and a MEP, Lázsló Tökes, Bishop of the Reformed Church in Romania, a prominent dissident under the communist regime and presently a MEP, and two Dutchmen, Jan Wiersma, former MEP for the Dutch Labour Party, and Professor Theo de Wit. In the discussion, Courtois reminded the audience of the dact that the church was the only significant force which opposed totalitarianism before the 2nd World War, as two 1937 papal encyclicals showed, Divina Redemptoris defending private property rights against communism, Mit brennender Sorge criticizing the German Nazi regime. In the discussion, Dr. Pawel Ukielski, a delegate to the Platform, said that the experience of Central and East Europeans was often overlooked in history books about the 2nd World War. For example, the war was not originally between the Axis powers and the Allied powers, since Hitler and Stalin had in their 1939 non-aggression pact divided Central and Eastern Europe up between the two of them, remaining allies until the Summer of 1941.

Gissurarson’s slides in the Hague

Standard Oil: Illustration from 1904.

At a seminar in the Faculty of Business Administration 5 November 2013, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson criticized the accounts on the Icelandic economy given by authors such as Roger Boyes, Robert Wade and Sigurbjorg Sigurgeirsdottir. Those people claimed that the economy had, for most of the 20th Century, been controlled by “Fourteen Families” or by an “Octopus”. The concept of the “Fourteen Families” originally came from El Salvador, that country being divided into fourteen regions, with a great contrast between a small class of landowners and the poor multitude. Iceland had however a relatively even distribution of income and was in many other respects very different from El Salvador. Some families had certainly been influential in Iceland in the 20th Century, such as the Thors Dynasty, the Engey Family and some merchant families. But powerful families had also existed on the left. Hermann Jonasson and his son, Steingrimur Hermannsson, of the Progressive Party had for example been Prime Ministers for a total of 17 years in the Century. Former Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir was the daughter of a Member of Parliament for the Social Democrats and the granddaughter of a well-known trade union leader. Gissurarson pointed out that in this matter the causal connection might be different from what many believed. Perhaps families were renowned, because many individuals in them had had distinguished careers, rather than that they had had distinguished careers because they came from renowned families. The concept of the “Octopus” was also foreign by origin. It was used in early 20th Century about monopoly capitalism, but in Iceland it became a household word when the government broadcasting service in 1986–7 showed a television series on the Italian mafia called “The Octopus”. Journalists had seized the word and used it about a loosely-connected group of businessmen led by architect Halldor H. Jonsson. That group had however only controlled a few of the largest companies in Iceland, and only for a while: Many companies had been cooperatives, while others had been government enterprises, and some had been fishing firms or marketing associations for such firms.

Loans to three major business groups 2005-9. Red line is Baugur clan. Green line is Bjorgolfur, father and son. Source: SIC report 210.

Professor Gissurarson discussed the claim that in Iceland the Octopus had been replaced by the Locomotive Group as a leading power elite at the end of the 20th Century. He said that the Locomotive Group had been idealistic in origin: It had been formed in 1972 to publish a cultural magazine, The Locomotive, while the editorial board had contined to meet for lunches forthnightly, after the magazine folded in 1975. This had been a diverse group: For example, two members of it, David Oddsson and Thorsteinn Palsson, had competed for the leadership of the Independence Party in 1991. The Locomotive Group had been an innocent luncheon group, not a power elite. Professor Gissurarson also rejected some theses put forward by Robert Wade and Sigurbjorg Sigurgeirsdottir about the Icelandic bank collapse in 2008. The collapse was not because of deregulation, because the legal and regulatory framework was precisely the same in Iceland as in other member states of the EEA, European Economic Area. However, the sound management of the economy in 1991–2004 had led to much confidence in the Icelandic economy and to very high credit ratings. This had been taken advantage of by a small clan of businessmen led by Jon Asgeir Johannesson of Baugur. When the report by the Special Investigation Commission of the Icelandic Parliament into the bank collapse was studied, it became clear that that Baugur Clan was in a class of its own in terms of borrowing. Other business groups, such as the Exista people and the Bjorgolfur father and son, had been more cautious. Professor Gissurarson pointed out that in another way the Baugur clan was in a class of its own: It bought up the private media in Iceland and used it to attack those whom it considered its enemies. Professor Gissurarson concluded by saying that the tiny population of Iceland was both a problem and an opportunity.

The seminar was well-attended, although Professor Gissurarson remarked that he missed some of the authors whose statements he criticized, having specially invited them to respond to his criticisms. A member of the audience, Bjorn Bjarnason, former Minister of Justice (2003–2009) and of Education (1995–2002), blogged about the talk. The online edition of Morgunbladid published an interview with Professor Gissurarson on his message.