Iceland – Engaging Peace

By guest author Dr. Michael Corgan

National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance whistle-blower Edward Snowden is in limbo, unable to return to the U.S. Might Iceland offer asylum as payback for the way the U.S. treated Iceland in 2006?

Hong Kong protest in support of Snowden. Photo by Voice of America, in public domain.

The Bush administration in 2006 arbitrarily and unilaterally pulled all U.S. forces out of Iceland even while the State Department had a negotiator at the prime minister’s office supposedly talking about how many U.S. forces we would keep there.

Of course a good number of Icelanders never wanted the U.S. there in the first place and were opposed to NATO membership altogether. The majority, however, did favor a U.S. presence, and the sitting government was led by the rightist, pro-U.S., Independence Party. The prime minister (PM), David Oddson, had been in power for 13 years, longer than any other European PM. His response to the pullout: “We’ll be the only NATO capital without air defense.”

Thus the U.S. treated Iceland rather dismissively as the tiny state it was. Many politicians who had long careers supporting U.S. positions were at least embarrassed.

Would taking in Snowden be a chance for Iceland to show it is still a sovereign state and can make that status count on occasion? Most of my sources said no. Among other things, too much trouble.

Some outside journalists made comparisons to Iceland’s granting citizenship to chess champion Bobby Fischer against U.S. desires–but remember, Fischer put Iceland on the map in 1972.

Everyone spies on everyone else. But so far Snowden (and Julian Assange of Wikileaks) are mostly leaking American secrets. The U.S. government has been warning others to mute their outraged reactions since, I am sure, we could reveal what others have been up to.

Mr. Snowden is a hot potato and carries much more baggage with him than his inside information. Russian leader Vladimir Putin won’t give Snowden citizenship unless he stops spilling secrets. After all, who would be next? Nevertheless, word is out that Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua—all of which have their own reasonable gripes against the U.S. government–have extended invitations to him. Tensions run high.

Ever since 9/11, the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP) has been studying the views of ordinary people concerning war and peace and related issues.

We started our work at Boston University but soon attracted psychologists and other social scientists from around the world to work with us on the project.

We have investigated, for example, the extent to which people from different countries, different continents, different religions, different ethnicities, and different genders define terms like “war” and “peace” in similar—or different—ways. We have also studied people’s justifications for invading other countries or torturing prisoners of war, and explored the extent to which such justifications vary among people from different countries, religions, etc.

We have findings from countries as diverse as the United States, Iceland, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Russia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, South Africa, India, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, Peru, and Nicaragua.

Consider what you know about government-sponsored aggression around the world. In what countries do you think the greatest support for government-sponsored aggression can be found? We’ll report some findings in our next post.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology