A Fleeting Or Permanent Military Presence? the Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland

A Fleeting or Permanent Military Presence? The Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland

Valur Ingimundarson

Increased Russian naval activities in the North Atlantic have refocused Western military attention on Iceland’s geostrategic importance. But even if the US has resumed irregular Cold War-style maritime and anti-submarine patrols from Iceland, there are no plans to reopen the American military base on the island.

ince the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, irregular rotational Cold War-style represented the Soviet Northern Fleet’s there have been increased calls maritime and anti-submarine (ASW) outlet to the Atlantic Ocean as a strategic for NATO’s return to the North patrols with long-range aircraft from choke point. One scenario featured Atlantic to ‘revitalise’ collective Iceland. This development has led in the exercise was a disinformation Sdefence against Russian assertiveness. some Western security analysts to take campaign in Iceland – supposedly The establishment of the new Atlantic a step further, arguing that the time is stemming from Russia – that had altered Command is consistent with such ripe to reopen the US Naval Air Station the outcome of national elections. This arguments, even if it is not comparable in Keflavik, which the Americans had put into power a leader intent on with its Cold War predecessor, which was closed down in 2006. From a long-term reducing US military activities and disbanded in 2002. The same applies to perspective, the US might contemplate ending NATO air policing and future the recent UK–Norwegian decision to such a move in the context of increased military deployments to Iceland. cooperate on maritime reconnaissance geopolitical tensions. But there are Ironically, the idea for the plot seems and anti-submarine warfare in the North currently no plans for the return of to have been borrowed from another Atlantic. Western military interest in the US troops to Iceland. A request for more familiar script – the 2016 US North has not only been accompanied a permanent US presence would not presidential elections – which inevitably by the recycling of Cold War concepts, only require new base negotiations brings attention to US President such as ‘deterrence’, the ‘Greenland– with Iceland, which could fuel Donald Trump’s own vagarious attitude Iceland–UK (GIUK) gap’ and ‘maritime domestic political opposition. It could towards NATO. Yet, no matter how supremacy’, and by the introduction also potentially destabilise the Icelandic fanciful, game plans, bordering on the of new ones, such as ‘hybrid warfare’ government. For the US, the status quo conspiratorial, can sometimes provide and ‘hyperwar’. It has also renewed has, in fact, many advantages, allowing some political insights. While the CNAS attention on the geostrategic position it to conduct North Atlantic ASW scenario does not in any way correspond of Iceland, whose military importance operations as part of the 1951 US– with current political realities in Iceland, had evaporated following the end of the Icelandic defence agreement, which is it can be used as a point of departure Cold War. Old metaphors describing based on the North Atlantic Treaty. because it raises questions about Iceland as ‘the unsinkable aircraft carrier Iceland’s commitment to the Western in the middle of the Atlantic’ have been Alliance and evokes memories of past resurrected to make the case for the Iceland’s Defence disputes with it. It also spurs speculation island’s ‘enduring importance’ for the about how Iceland would react to a defence of the region. Policy – Past and Present potential future bid by the US to reopen While Russia’s nuclear-powered its Keflavik military base. undersea fleet has become more Many proponents of establishing a For one thing, the current Icelandic sophisticated, with additional more robust Western military presence government – a three-party coalition capabilities such as cruise missiles, its in the North Atlantic have engaged in spanning the left–right political navy is much smaller and far less active a variety of advocacy projects. The spectrum – is headed by Prime Minister in the North Atlantic than it was during Center for a New American Security Katrín Jakobsdóttir, whose party, the Soviet times. But due to an increase (CNAS) conducted, for example, a table Left–Green Movement, opposes the in Russian submarine activities in the top exercise in 2017, focusing on the US–Icelandic defence agreement and North Atlantic, the US has resumed re-emergence of the GIUK gap, which Iceland’s NATO membership. Second,

August 2018, Vol. 38, No. 7 1 RUSI Newsbrief The US Naval Air Station in Keflavik, Iceland on 19 August 1982. The base was used to conduct marine and anti-submarine patrols in the North Atlantic as part of the 1951 US–Iceland defence agreement, until the base was closed in 2006. Though US troops have not officially returned to the base, the US military spent 153 days operating out of Keflavik in 2017.Courtesy of August 2018, Vol. 38, No. 7 2 US Department of Defense/Wikimedia The US in Iceland

during the Cold War, two left-wing to the Icelandic government, except for While the operations have been less governments in the 1950s and 1970s a small listening post near Keflavik. frequent this year, US interest has been unsuccessfully sought to terminate the Betting correctly that the Icelandic sustained. In addition, the US Navy US military presence without leaving government would, in the end, not make was awarded approximately $36 million NATO. Finally, during a protracted good on its promise to abrogate the to renew hanger facilities for P-8 diplomatic dispute between Iceland defence agreement, the US reiterated Poseidon reconnaissance planes in and the US from 2003 to 2006, a right- its commitment to Iceland through Iceland. When the Americans decided wing prime minister, Davíð Oddsson, projected or non-territorial defence after to embark on this project in 2016, then threatened to abrogate the defence withdrawing its troops from Keflavik. Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur agreement if the Americans unilaterally But since the agreement was originally Davíð Gunnlaugsson admitted that removed fighter jets stationed in Iceland, made to legalise and institutionalise the he had not been informed beforehand on the grounds that it represented a stationing of US troops in Iceland, it and that he had ‘heard it on the news’. violation of its terms. was, in effect, reinterpreted as a defence Even if Gunnlaugsson claimed to Thus, it should be no surprise guarantee without a permanent military welcome renewed military US interest that the Icelandic government may presence. Iceland’s 2007 agreement in Iceland – not because it contributed question Western military interests in with NATO on temporary air policing to collective defence but because it Iceland or use them as bargaining chips arrangements with individual member created jobs for Icelanders – the lack in diplomatic disputes with NATO states, including the US, was seen as of consultation with the Icelandic Allies, as happened during the ‘Cod partial compensation for the base government irked some officials. They Wars’ with the UK over the extension closure. The US continued, however, to did not want to be put in a position of Iceland’s fishery limits from the show limited military interest in Iceland. where they would be required to 1950s until the 1970s. Yet, such Bilateral annual defence talks, which rationalise decisions on US military political challenges have not led to an were mostly symbolic, did nothing to activities in Iceland that had been abandonment of Iceland’s pro-Western change that perception. At the same made unilaterally by the Americans, as foreign and security policy, which is time, the Americans knew that they had was frequently the case during the Cold rooted in its NATO membership and access to Iceland through the defence War. Neither did it help that when the the US–Icelandic defence agreement. agreement in the case of changed US military newspaper Stars and Stripes This political orientation was by no military circumstances in the North broke the story, a US Navy source was way uncontested in a country that has Atlantic. quoted as stating that the US could never had its own military and that ‘eventually establish regular patrol had adopted a neutrality policy when rotations at the base, which would it gained sovereignty from Denmark It should be no surprise likely resemble the Navy’s maritime 100 years ago. Indeed, the US military patrol force at its air base in Sigonella, presence was – for extended periods of that the Icelandic Sicily, where the squadrons rotate out time during the Cold War – the most government may question every six months’. Since about 4,000 controversial issue in Icelandic domestic Western military interests US personnel are stationed at the politics. But when the US closed down Sigonella base, this seemed to suggest the Keflavik base in 2006, the question in Iceland or use them the return of US troops to Iceland. was rather whether this unilateral act as bargaining chips in A centre-right Icelandic – which was vigorously opposed by a diplomatic disputes with government was quick to contain the centre-right Icelandic government – potential political damage by making it signalled a temporary or a permanent NATO Allies clear that there were no plans to reopen withdrawal from a geostrategic area the US base. The current government, whose military significance had been which was formed in late 2017 made abundantly apparent during the following the scandal-related fall of two Second World War and the Cold War. successive governments in 2016–2017, In the mid-2000s, it seemed that the Returning to a Cold War has reinforced this position. While it US had opted for the latter course. It is led by the anti-military Left–Green saw no military value in Iceland when Practice: US Maritime Movement, the other two parties, the its attention was focused on wars in Patrolling Missions centre-right Independence Party, the Afghanistan and Iraq, claiming that largest political force in Iceland, and Russia was no longer a hostile power. The Ukrainian crisis and the increased the rural centrist Progressive Party, are With neither the US Navy nor the US Air capabilities of the Russian submarine pro-NATO. Jakobsdóttir has stated that Force willing to pay for the more than fleet saw a gradual shift in US attitudes there are ‘no plans for any permanent $250 million of annual costs to operate toward the military importance of long-term [military] presence, which the base in Iceland, the administration Iceland. In 2014, the US military spent to my mind is important’. Foreign of George W Bush decided to put an 20 days operating out of Keflavik Minister Guðlaugur Þór Þórðarson, end to the US military presence and to hunt for submarines; in 2017, a centre-right pro-NATO politician hand over the facilities and ‘agreed areas’ the number of days jumped to 153. who has been supportive of the US

August 2018, Vol. 38, No. 7 3 RUSI Newsbrief The US in Iceland

anti-submarine activities in Iceland, formed to stabilise a political situation Iceland are not considered a territorial has also made it clear to ‘avoid after a period of volatility and to threat. And the unpopularity of Trump, any misunderstanding … that no manage an economic boom fuelled which has not affected the bilateral one is contemplating a permanent by tourism, reflecting Iceland’s speedy defence relationship up to now, could military presence in the country’. recovery from the traumatic collapse easily spill over into a debate over US This interpretation has recently been of its banking system, when it became military rights in Iceland. seconded by US President Donald the first casualty of the 2008 financial A more relevant question is of what Trump’s administration, which has crisis. In the absence of a geopolitical use it would be for the Americans to confirmed that it has no plans to re- emergency, an attempt to change press for a permanent military presence establish the base in Iceland. Iceland’s policy on the stationing in Iceland. They have, as noted, full Despite these categorical of troops could pose a threat to the access to the country as part of the US– statements, one can speculate about government. Icelandic defence agreement without Icelandic reactions to a future US having to operate a full-scale base. It is base request due to increased Russian consistent with the thesis – advanced military activities in the North Atlantic. At some point, questions by historians John Gallagher and It would most likely generate an intense Ronald Robinson – about the nature domestic political debate. The current can be raised about of the 19th Century British empire: situation reflects what comes closest to a the difference between ‘informal [control] if possible, formal if foreign and security policy compromise a temporary and a necessary’. US military planes sometimes in Iceland – a political state of affairs arrive in Iceland with one day’s notice that never existed during the Cold permanent US stay in for anti-submarine missions. While the War. The Left–Green Movement has Iceland, especially, if the US has increased military information softened its foreign and security policy rotational operations sharing with Iceland, some Icelandic stance. It abstained when, in 2016, officials want to establish a firmer the Icelandic parliament approved, increase substantially regulatory framework for the American unopposed, its first national security presence. A joint declaration between policy, which reaffirmed a commitment the US Department of Defense and to the US–Icelandic defence agreement Given its ideological disposition, the Icelandic Foreign Ministry signed in and NATO. In return, the Left–Greens it would be practically impossible for 2016 does not specify conditions for US managed to insert key points of their the Left–Green Movement to agree ASW operations. Maximum flexibility party platform into the parliamentary to the re-establishment of the US is the preferred US option. It is true resolution, including a commitment base as part of a government policy; that some Pentagon officials regret the to disarmament, the fight against after all, the 2017 decision to enter decision to leave Iceland in 2006 in view social and gender inequalities, and the a coalition government with the of new realities, but the political costs securitisation of climate change. What rightist Independence Party proved of reviving the base question in Iceland paved the way for this rare display of controversial among the rank-and-file. could prove to be far higher than the unanimity was the departure of the US What is more, the Left–Greens – and convenience of being able to choose military reflecting a different political possibly parties on the centre-left, between a temporary and permanent landscape; it led to increased willingness such as the Social Democratic Alliance, presence. A request for the return of to develop a more consensus-oriented which is pro-NATO, and the Pirate US troops to Iceland could even conjure foreign and security policy based on Party – would most likely insist on a the CNAS scenario discussed above a broad security concept, where the referendum on the question of the without the need for a sinister Russian military factor would not be privileged return of US troops to Iceland. Such manipulative factor to explain it: a more over other threats such as climate a demand would be hard to resist in a sceptical Icelandic domestic political change, natural disasters, organised time of increased support for referenda opinion towards the US and NATO. crime, or terrorism. and other forms of crowd-sourced Increased US maritime patrolling decision-making processes. To be sure, Valur Ingimundarson activities from Iceland, even if they there is currently a strong parliamentary Valur is a Professor of Contemporary can be characterised as a creeping majority for Iceland’s membership in History at the University of Iceland. military presence, have so far not been NATO. But it is not at all certain that He is an Associate Fellow at RUSI resisted in the Icelandic domestic the outcome of a referendum would and has written extensively on US- arena. At some point, questions can be be in favour of the re-stationing of European political and security raised about the difference between a US forces. In the case of a rejection, relations, NATO, US-UK relations temporary and a permanent US stay such a result would reflect popular with Iceland, and Icelandic foreign and in Iceland, especially if the rotational sentiments about Iceland’s non-armed security policy. operations increase substantially. status. Threat perceptions stemming However, any hint of a return of US from military factors are currently low. The views expressed in this article are the troops could reopen old debates. The Russian bomber flights or increased author’s, and do not necessarily reflect those of current Icelandic government was submarine activities in the vicinity of RUSI or any other institution.

August 2018, Vol. 38, No. 7 4 RUSI Newsbrief