Log in

View Full Version : The Icesave drama



al8
6th January 2010, 10:37
This has by far been the main issue in Iceland since the financial crash a year ago.

Icelandic bankers established a subsidiary Internet bank called Icesave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute) servicing depositors mainly in the UK and Netherlands. Since it didn't have as many employees or constant capital costs, being an Internet bank, it had more leeway to set loan shark interest rates higher than domestic banks in in the UK, Netherlands and elsewhere. Foreign invasion of the home market was not well seen by domestic banks. The private banking system in Iceland went under in the financial crisis, taking it's various branches and subsidiaries abroad down as well. In the wake of the folds the Republic of Iceland and it's banks where put on a terrorist list by the UK. Later a disagreement arose between the government of Iceland and UK and Netherlands as to how depositors insurance schemes should be set up and managed. Who are eligible, who gets preference and how much of lost deposits should be reimbursed by the Icelandic state and its tax payers.

Now that's the gist of it. UK and Netherlands wants the Icelandic tax base - which will mean the working class section of it - to reimburse as much as possible the UK's and Netherlands' near encompassing reimbursement to it's domestic Icesave depositors. To this end the UK and Dutch governments have used their controlling share in the IMF, and media influence to dictate the terms in their favor. The Leftist alliance in government has acquiesced to the IMF neo-liberal privatisation and working class thrift scheme - and to a pressured UK/Dutch slanted Icesave agreement that will further steep Iceland into the bottomless pit of neo-colonial loan-shark bondage and cheap resource exportation orientation of the economy.

In a new turn of events the President, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, has vetoed the law on a (mearly finalized) version of the Icesave agreement - the law will thus go to a popular vote. There is overwhelming popular opposition to this Icesave agreement as a whole. The fat servants in the ruling parties, corrupt labor unions and the employers coalition are all pissed they couldn't rush this through. As a result there is currently a strong political opposition to this presidential action as well as a media frenzy that preaches doom and gloom if this agreement doesn't get instituted smoothly. The voting masses are charactered as ignorant, stupid and not properly educated in the ways of capitalist economics nor informed about the particularities of the Icesave agreement process to make an informed vote. This tone has not appeared to my knowledge in the capitalist media when people are set to vote unrecallable parliamentary politicians once every 4 years.

The international community (read;foreign financial institutions) is outraged by this uncivilized delay. Credit rating institutions have put Iceland into a junk category - stalling loans. There have been further threats of isolating Iceland and other belligerent hand wriggling in foreign media outlets. Some nationalist commentators on the Internet are even calling for military action. It's really absurd and chilling to hear this sort of stuff from people. Especially when they come from people of a nation that has a rich history of plundering weaker nations.

These are some articles I recommend; Icelandic citizens, are we scapegoats? (http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/10/10/icelandic-citizens-are-we-scapegoats/),
Gordon Brown's Icelandic blame game (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/14/gordon-brown-iceland-finance),
Iceland is till reeling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/iceland-debt-financial-crisis), It’s War With Iceland. Will Brown Invade? (*)
(http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/01/05/its-war-with-iceland-will-brown-invade/).

I will also quickly translate a weeks old article from an Icelandic communist on this matter;



In the Shadow of Threats
Many important questions arise now when the final arrangements on the states responsibility in regards to the so-called Icesave agreement is being processed. How come this issue developed to this point, that despite every valid reason weighing against it, the leading pack of the government should persist so ruthlessly in pushing forward this ultimatum on the Icelandic nation?

All arguments point to that the agreement enjoys no legal basis and that interest rates and other terms be most unfair even if there'd be a validity to the basic demand. It is obvious that the Icelandic state cannot pay this demand compounded with all the other debts that have been dumped upon it.

The overwhelming majority of the nation is opposed to the passing of the bill. It has been implied quite clearly that this has no bearing because the populace is simply to shallow and irresponsible. It would be more accurate to call it shallow and irresponsible to bind the nation in such unbearable shackles that she is in no way obliged to take upon herself. But it is well known that the impetuous lust of the current government for EU membership pushes every other consideration aside.

Slander and Threats
Whereas all the standard arguments employed by the government have failed thus far it's leaders now resort to imply that they have been threatened on behalf of the nation and that something terrible will happen should the will of the Big Powers not be done.

What do leaders of nations do when their nation receives threats? It should be kept in mind that these kind of threats are an attack on the nation. Real leaders inform their people as to who is making the threats. And exactly what these threats entail. And unite the people to opposed such an attack. To change into a middleman and assist with the attainment of unjustified demands made through such threats is a betrayal of the nation - to put it very mildly.

This is how low the government steeps in order to brake the nation into submission to a foreign colonial power. However the truth of the matter is that the future of Iceland is not absolutely dependent on the whims of some European Colonial nations. All over the world are nations that are ready to have fair [business]dealings with us.

Mafia threats only work on people that cower from under them. The Icelandic nation can full well live upright and step out of the darkness and not be swayed nor guided by slander and scare-propaganda.

Thorvaldur Thorvaldsson, woodworker.

Demogorgon
6th January 2010, 10:47
Apart from the obvious implications of this, what I have been wondering is when the public vote this law down the Government will presumably resign. What happens then? Will forming a new Government even be possible under the circumstances?

Dimentio
6th January 2010, 12:04
It is a very interesting situation in Iceland right now, and the Icelandic people is in need of the solidarity of all progressives. It is completely bizarre that a nation should be sanctioned simply because going bankcrupt.

Q
6th January 2010, 12:22
Iceland represents the failure of capitalism able to give an answer to the crisis. They simply offloaded the debt of the banks on to the working class. The Icelandic working class should be fully supported in their struggle.

Demogorgon
6th January 2010, 14:24
The interesting thing is that before all this happened, Iceland was being praised by all the neoliberal enthusiasts for going to ridiculous degrees of free market fundamentalism. Cato article after Cato article praised it and The Economist could barely restrain its enthusiasm. Watch them slink away from their praise now and condemn irresponsibility.

With the exception of Daniel Hannan who still claims there was nothing fundamentally wrong with what Iceland did and is still a model to be followed, it seems right wing friends will desert you fast.

al8
6th January 2010, 19:13
Apart from the obvious implications of this, what I have been wondering is when the public vote this law down the Government will presumably resign. What happens then? Will forming a new Government even be possible under the circumstances?

I honestly don't know for sure. However the right wing populist have been going all progressively nationalist on this issue and incorrectly slandered the left-social democratic/center-social democratic left-alliance government of 'communist' treachery. There is a chance that the old Conservative (Independence) party will be able to channel left impulses in a right wing direction.


The interesting thing is that before all this happened, Iceland was being praised by all the neoliberal enthusiasts for going to ridiculous degrees of free market fundamentalism. Cato article after Cato article praised it and The Economist could barely restrain its enthusiasm. Watch them slink away from their praise now and condemn irresponsibility.

With the exception of Daniel Hannan who still claims there was nothing fundamentally wrong with what Iceland did and is still a model to be followed, it seems right wing friends will desert you fast.

Yes, Iceland was a neoliberal poster child. It seems irrational but it is quite rational when you examine this from a marxist perspective. Capital need new avenues to grow and everything must be commodified to that purpose. Be there a regulatory roadblock - deregulation. Is there a dictate needed to further commodification - a government regulation will be employed.

---
I want to recommend two other articles; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/people-of-iceland-versus_b_412186.html (People of Iceland versus Global Economic Policy Masters), My contribution to the international media (http://elvira.blog.is/blog/elvira/entry/1001480/)

Dimentio
6th January 2010, 21:32
So the party which is responsible for the crisis will try to steal leftist votes?

Well, I guess that is typical for parliamentarian democracies. Isn't there any room to start a new party?

cyu
7th January 2010, 00:55
Iceland was a neoliberal poster child


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom - Iceland was ranked behind Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Denmark, the UK, and the Netherlands by right-wingers (Heritage and WSJ) - kind of interesting, actually, how they seem to like English speaking countries...

In terms of press freedom, it's ranked higher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index by Reporters Without Borders.

In terms of democracy, it's ranked much higher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index - 3rd behind Sweden and Norway by The Economist (another pro-capitalist publication).

In terms of human development, it's also ranked 3rd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index behind Norway and Australia by the UN.

It's also third in life expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

...and apparently has the lowest infant mortality rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

al8
7th January 2010, 12:15
However bizarre this mays sound, Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson, a well known neo-liberal pundits writes a very articulate spot on article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704842604574641913812666516.html) about this matter:


Tuesday's refusal by President of Iceland Olafur Ragnar Grimsson to sign into law the recent deal on bank deposits between Iceland, on the one hand, and the British and the Dutch governments, on the other hand, is only the latest in a series of dramatic events befalling the once prosperous and peaceful island in the North Atlantic.

According to the deal, Iceland undertakes to reimburse the British and the Dutch governments for their payments to depositors with the Icelandic Landsbanki in so-called Icesave accounts. The deal was forced on the Icelandic government mainly by the British, who, during the first months of the international financial crisis of the autumn of 2008, used London's position as one of the financial centers of the world to hinder money transfers to and from Iceland, so as to slowly strangle its small economy.

The U.K. government even briefly put Iceland's central bank and the Icelandic ministry of finance on an official Internet list of terrorist organizations, notwithstanding the fact that Iceland—which does not have an army—has been an ally of the United Kingdom in NATO for 60 years .

The British also turned the IMF on the Icelanders, as if it was a bounty collector. Despite strenuous denials by the IMF, it is clear that its financial assistance to the small island nation was on condition that it would reimburse the British and the Dutch for their payments to depositors.

By his refusal, the Icelandic president was responding to the fierce opposition of the vast majority of his nation to the deal with the British and the Dutch. But why does Iceland not want to pay?

First, Icelanders point out that the amount of money involved is enormous by Icelandic standards, possibly as much as $6 billion—about half the country's entire GDP: It is on a scale with the debt burden imposed on the Germans after World War I.

Secondly, the Icelanders assert that they will honor all legal obligations to depositors in the EEA (European Economic Area, of which Iceland is a member-state). But they argue that this only means that deposits are covered by the Icelandic Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund set up under EEA rules. If that Fund is unable to meet its obligations, there is no clear requirement, under EEA rules, for the Icelandic government to step in.

In the third place, the Icelanders refer to Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank, and Wouter Bos, the Dutch finance minister, who both have stated publicly that the EEA rules on deposit insurance were not designed, anyway, for the collapse of an entire financial system, such as Iceland saw.

Fourthly, a lot of the damage done can be directly attributed to the actions of the British government, which brought about, or at least contributed to, the collapse of the Icelandic banking system. Should the British not solve the problem they themselves created?

Many Icelanders are dismayed by the feebleness of the present Icelandic government, led by the left-leaning Social Democrat Johanna Sigurdardottir. This government seems to have succumbed to almost all the demands made by the British and the Dutch governments. It has even signed away its right to refer eventual legal disputes in the matter to the courts. Instead of explaining the Icelandic arguments abroad, Ms. Sigurdardottir has largely echoed the British and the Dutch positions in Iceland, possibly in the hope of being able to lead Iceland into the EU, a long-standing dream of the Icelandic Social Democrats.

The present upheaval will however make EU membership less likely: The EU will be less eager to accept Iceland; and the Icelanders, seeing the EU as supporting the interests of the British and the Dutch against Iceland, will be more reluctant to join.

Mr. Gissurarson is a former board member of Iceland's Central Bank and a professor of political philosophy at the University of Iceland.

rednordman
7th January 2010, 14:46
yes, Iceland was a neoliberal poster child.I dont see this at all tbh. I know that people saw it as a sort of 'perfect example' for the market, BUT isnt one of the main arguements for capitalism is that the market brings prices down? If that is the case, than why did the rightwing celebrate Iceland, When it was one of the most rediculously expensive countries in the western world?

Demogorgon
7th January 2010, 15:03
That is a good article. The trouble is, I doubt Iceland will be able to withstand the full degree of pressure the British Government will bring to bare on it. I wish it were otherwise but if the UK Government decides it is getting the money, it will probably get it by one means or another, and it will fire up public opinion enough here that most people won't care what happens to Iceland. Indeed don't be surprised if a large part of Labour's election strategy will involve accusing the Conservatives of promoting Iceland-style economic policies and for good measure will kick Iceland while its down to hammer home the consequences of that.

Mind you if all of this means that the right wing idiots who got Iceland into this mess, regain some of their popularity and get back into office then I despair.

Demogorgon
7th January 2010, 15:15
I dont see this at all tbh. I know that people saw it as a sort of 'perfect example' for the market, BUT isnt one of the main arguements for capitalism is that the market brings prices down? If that is the case, than why did the rightwing celebrate Iceland, When it was one of the most rediculously expensive countries in the western world?
"Bringing down prices" is just a bit of rhetoric. They loved Iceland because everything that wasn't nailed down was privatised, a flat tax was introduced, and the financial markets were deregulated. As far as the right were concerned, the good times rolled.

You have to remember than whenever a neoliberal reform takes place there will usually be a few years of frenzied economic as the carpetbaggers move in and various financial bubbles emerge. As that happens the right proclaim their policies work and it takes a little longer for the inevitable consequences to come round.

al8
11th January 2010, 09:46
Another article (http://icelandweatherreport.com/2009/08/eva-joly-iceland-is-being-blackmailed.html), here by Eva Joly - a financial fraud investigator, that might help shed more light on the issue