USAF to Leave Iceland?
Iceland Presses U.S. Not to Remove Jets

21st July 2003

A move by the Bush administration to withdraw the last several U.S. Air Force fighter jets from Iceland has drawn strong objection from Icelandic authorities and threatened to disrupt relations with yet another NATO ally.

Pentagon officials contend the planes, remnants of an operation started four decades ago to guard the North Atlantic against a Soviet threat, no longer need to be based in Iceland and can be used better elsewhere. But Iceland, which has no military, regards the aircraft as essential to its air defense and, even more important, as a symbol of a U.S. commitment to defend the nation.

Washington's handling of the matter has further upset Iceland. Word of the U.S. decision to yank the planes was delivered to the Reykjavik government in early May -- just before a closely contested parliamentary election. The timing prompted NATO Secretary General George Robertson to intervene and urge the Bush administration to suspend a June withdrawal deadline, which it did. "He rang up and said, 'For goodness sake, this is not the right time to do something like this,' " a NATO diplomat said.

In numbers of personnel and equipment, the Iceland case constitutes only a small fraction of the large-scale repositioning of U.S. forces around the world, which the Pentagon has undertaken in an attempt to shift from Cold War-era missions and focus more on combating terrorism and interdicting weapons of mass destruction. But this case also highlights how these U.S. military shifts can run afoul of host country sensitivities and interests.

Iceland's center-right coalition retained power in the May 10 vote, but with a sharply reduced majority. A letter from President Bush to Prime Minister David Oddsson in early June expressed interest in pursuing a dialogue about U.S. defense obligations, but did little to assuage bruised feelings in Iceland.

Officials there saw the unilateral nature of the U.S. decision as a violation of the spirit of a 1951 defense agreement. A meeting June 23 of U.S. and Icelandic officials on continued implementation of the 1951 accord resulted in little progress, with both sides simply exchanging views, according to participants. "The prime minister has said he sees no need for further talks if the United States holds on to its current attitude," said Helgi Agustsson, Iceland's ambassador to the United States. "We hope the planes will remain."

Eager to avoid a major blowup, Bush's top national security advisers discussed the Iceland situation at a meeting last week and came away resolved to elevate and intensify talks with Reykjavik. "We're prepared to engage at a senior level," one senior administration official said.

Since the end of the Cold War, the Air Force has been pressing to pull its jets out of Iceland. In 1994, the Clinton administration withdrew eight fighters but agreed to keep four permanently at the Keflavik Naval Air Station, near Reykjavik. The two sides were to renegotiate the deal in 2001, but talks were postponed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and a U.S. strategic review. Now the Bush administration wants to withdraw the remaining four F-15 fighter jets, along with five rescue helicopters and two refueling planes.

While U.S. officials argue that the threat in the North Atlantic is no longer what it was during the Cold War, Icelandic officials warn of leaving their country without any air defense. "September 11th wasn't supposed to happen, either," Agustsson said. "An enemy always looks for the weakest link." Mindful that the Bush administration already is suffering badly strained relations with such major NATO allies as France and Germany over the invasion of Iraq, officials in Reykjavik have emphasized the supportive role played in recent years by Oddsson's government.

Iceland has contributed to peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan and, most recently, pledged nearly $4 million in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Iraq. But the flap over the planes "has created the most serious crisis in U.S.-Icelandic relations since the early 1970s, when a left-center government sought to abrogate the defense treaty and oust the Americans," said Valur Ingimundarson, a foreign relations expert at the University of Iceland.

How the standoff plays out is being watched closely in NATO circles. "I don't think anyone could seriously argue there's still a military necessity for the U.S. jets to be in Iceland," the NATO diplomat said. "But in an alliance, defense is not just about jets. It's also about perceptions, it's about good relations, it's about assurances."

In addition to the 680 Air Force personnel at the Iceland base, the Navy has 1,200 service members there and operates four P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft as part of reconnaissance operations in the North Atlantic. Even with Iceland's reduced importance as a strategic outpost, a senior Navy spokesman said, the Navy has no plans to pull out. But implying that the Navy could be asked to leave if the Air Force goes, Oddsson has said that without a clear and visible defense commitment on the part of the United States, he sees no reason for any U.S. troops to stay in the country.

Washington's approach so far has led to some sniping within the administration. One State Department official blamed the Pentagon for initially forcing the issue with the Iceland government without laying the proper diplomatic groundwork. But several other administration officials said Icelandic authorities should not have been surprised because Oddsson was informed last year of the U.S. interest in removing the planes. "We haven't moved anything yet, and no final decisions have been taken," a senior administration official said. "What we want is to have a serious discussion with the Icelandics about this. This is going to be a transparent process where we consult with the Icelandics at all stages."

By Bradley Graham - Washington Post Staff Writer