Not in Our Name? The Illusion of Peace

The second verse of Hver á sér fegra föðurland [e. "Who has a Lovelier Fatherland] by Hulda, from 1944, begins like this:

Who has a nation among nations,

which knows neither sword nor blood,

but lives with love and light and wealth,

which harmony bestowed?

Iceland has long been considered a peaceful paradise, and Icelanders are exceedingly proud of this fact, as can be seen in Hulda´s poem which almost became our national anthem. Is this truly the case or is the idea of a peaceful Iceland an illusion?

Iceland has long been at the top of global lists regarding equality and peace. Icelanders are proud that there is no army here and that their community is considered safe. Since the beginning of the Global Peace Index measurements, Iceland usually ranks first when it comes to the most peaceful country in the world. The measurements are based on citizens' security and military development. Our lack of military presence, therefore, plays a big part in securing this position for us.

This branding of a peaceful paradise can easily be challenged. We are a part of the defensive military alliance NATO, which has only gotten stronger and our involvement has increased in the last few months because of obvious circumstances: Russia's war against Ukraine. But this is an old tune, Icelandic pacifists have condemned our participation in NATO since the beginning, and we are familiar with this criticism. In recent years, however, new criticism can be seen flaring up in our society, the state’s treatment of refugees and immigrants has been downright inhumane. At the forefront of our thoughts are recent police deportations of asylum seekers to Greece, even though the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that these are inhumane conditions for refugees to live in.

The public has strongly protested this, but the Directorate of Immigration, the government and the police refuse to take responsibility and everyone blames each other. Katrín Jakobsdóttir´s government has not condemned these measures and ignores the adamant wishes of the public.

How can Iceland be considered a peaceful country when we violently deport people en masse and systematic racism prevents people from receiving refuge? The answer lies in our definition of what makes a citizen. The security of citizens scores better on the peace index, but asylum seekers and immigrants in the application process are not defined as citizens. The siege and persecution of these groups by the police and the authorities are not considered a threat to Icelandic citizens, and therefore we are still considered a peaceful society.

We would like to introduce readers to a relevant theory from the studies of small states regarding nation branding. That theory points out how small states often use their reputation to influence certain issues on an international level. Small states rarely have a lot of power when it comes to economic and warfare matters but on the other hand, the reputation and image of a small state can be its most influential tool. In this way, small states limit themselves to specific issues and “brand” themselves with it. It is embedded in the national image and exported like goods. A common example is e.g. how Nordic countries managed to brand themselves as pioneers in climate change matters and are now a leading force when it comes to these issues.

Iceland as a nation of peace is a brand that has helped us gain influence on an international scale. Iceland was elected to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2018-19, which is considered the most important task that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has undertaken because of the influence it granted us. Our election campaign for the Council seat was based on the fact that Icelanders are a nation of equality and peace. This belief is not only trusted abroad but also in Iceland, and it has been for a long time as can be seen in Hulda´s poem, Hver á sér fegra föðurland (Who has a lovelier fatherland).

Even though peace is embedded within our own patriotic ideas, it doesn’t mean that we adhere to it. In this regard, hypocrisy reigns supreme. In Iceland, the majority of its citizens are white. Our history, our traditions and our cultural heritage is inherently white. Icelanders have a long history of marginalizing those who are different. We’ve always demanded that in order to truly be part of society, one has to speak Icelandic, and this is isolating - not just for refugees, but for everyone of foreign origin. We urge people to speak Icelandic, but we don’t provide the means to learn the language. Unlike other Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Norway, the Icelandic government does not finance language teaching. Those who wish to learn Icelandic must do so on their own time, outside of work and pay out of their own pocket. Additionally, there’s a shortage of teachers who teach Icelandic as a second language. Our nationalistic tendencies are crystallized in our lack of action when it comes to accepting people who don’t speak Icelandic. Fussing over the fact that people don’t speak Icelandic amounts to absolutely nothing when people simply don’t have the means to learn the language. Iceland is immensely influenced by Europe. There’s little education available regarding matters outside of Western culture, and the handling of said matters is often clumsy. There’s a fine line between patriotism and nationalism.

Discourse can oftentimes reveal underlying racism present within society. The fact that politicians speak of the refugee threat when discussing the increased number of refugees and asylum seekers in Iceland is a clear example of the racism present in our culture. The real refugee threat is the rapidly increasing number of people fleeing the circumstances in their home country, not the fact that they’re coming our way. This usage of the word threat is both racist and dehumanizing.

When it comes to politics, there’s been discussions regarding how Iceland is simply not equipped to receive all these refugees, and the importance of protecting the Icelandic nation. The hypocrisy became evident when war broke out in Europe in the early months of this year and the tables turned now that the people who knocked on our door were white, Christian refugees. The difference in societal viewpoints and governmental actions is astounding.

As a nation, we believe that Iceland is a peaceful country, and when our governing bodies perform inhumane actions it is “not in our name” - but we voted for these governing bodies. Petitions and protests do little to nothing if we keep voting for parties who mercilessly evict people, or parties who watch and do nothing. These deportations are far from being new; Iceland has been cruel in its dealings with refugees from the very start. If we want to own up to our image as the most peaceful country in the world, we need to change our stance significantly. Refugees will only increase in number, and it’s high time we change our system radically for the better. The very last lines in the poem Ég heyrði þau nálgast (I heard them coming closer) by Snorri Hjartarson, written in 1966, show how long we have failed these people.

but where is our peaceful land

where might you be hiding

with your hope

all of our hopes?

They watched me in silence

and disappeared from my sight

into the night

the dark and the night.