This is pure semantics here, but no-one here ever refers to the 10 May 1940 event as the "Invasion of Iceland", but rather uses the "friendlier" term Occupation, seeing as out of the two warring parties, everyone except the Communists (who sort of supported Hitler until June 41 due to the NAP) gasped a sigh of relief that it was in fact the Brits and not the Germans that came here first.

@Putin: I need to address some of your points. a) Language: Official language aside, it was not used by the general population in Iceland, even though many of the upper class learned it. The modern grammar you refer to was indeed written by Rask, a Dane who had learned Icelandic by himself, which was considered then and now to be a huge feat. The two languages are very different despite both being derived from Old Norse and not easily interchangable. This whole discussion dances around the fact that Iceland is verifiably not Danish in its cultural makeup, genetics nor heritage and gained little in being a "possession" that the Danes didn't really have an interest in.

b) I can sympathise to a point with your ultra-realist position and which equates sovereignty with Hard Power, much like Stalin asking how many divisions the Pope had. However you cannot measure the world completely in those terms. The international system isn't a mad free-for-all, in spite of appearances.

"Scotland has plenty of autonomy over its own domestic affairs. So does Gaza. So does Catalonia." But all of these have to eventually buckle under another entity. If Scotland decides something that Westminster can't abide by, Scotland has to yield. We don't have to yield to anyone in any matter regarding our domestic policies. We have complete autonomy over our own domestic affairs. That's one part of sovereignty which you consistently overlook.

"As for Iceland having final say over foreign affairs, that's based on the goodwill of its allies." This could probably apply to each and every other country in the world today. No country can really do whatever crazy thing it dreams of without being kept in some sort of check by the international system or its allies. To take an extreme example: Could the UK use its nuclear weapons on a whim? Can the UK on account of its nuclear weapons impose its will on other nations? Even with their substantial military, they too would probably have to yield to the USA or the EU on every issue if hard power was the only factor in play here.

Our lack of armed forces has not prevented us from unilaterally expanding our fisheries in the fifties-seventies ("Cod Wars") in spite of most of our allies, including the US, UK and FRG opposing us. If in fact we are not sovereign and should just be Danish like you say, then why didn't Britain and West Germany somehow manage to enforce their will upon Iceland? The Cod Wars are an important example here, because it is sometimes used as an example of the limits of hard power. You could also examine the more recent issue of the Icesave-dispute between Iceland and the UK.

I won't deny that Iceland has sometimes tried to swing above its weight in international issues. But the main fact cannot be overlooked, that on many important issues, Iceland is able to make its own way in the world as a sovereign nation... lack of an army notwithstanding.

Hey, sgs, I read somewhere that there are a bunch of people in Iceland now with the last name "Hansson" meaning "his son", which is attributable to descendants of Icelandic women and occupying American servicemen whose identities were unknown.

Is that true at all?

:) I think that might be a myth, although supposedly a lot of "Hermannsson" babies were born at that time. Hermann is both a name (like Herman's Hermits), and a form of the word for soldier.

What is certainly true is that relations between the soldiers and the indigenous females was considered to be such a huge problem that it was referred to as simply "The situation".

Fasces, I don't know what you're even arguing about anymore.

My claim was that countries tend to balance against their most immediate foe. Pakistan & China's "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stance is completely consistent with that. That's exactly what balancing is.

India doesn't hate China because China "annexed" Tibet. India has always recognized Tibet as being part of China (and did so explicitly in a 1951 agreement). India was the second country in the world to recognize the PRC. Relations were very warm throughout the 1950s. Nehru genuinely admired China, and China warmly welcomed Nehru when he visited in 1954. Nehru actually did all he could to keep the border issue out of public relations during this time. Of course when the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959, things changed. But more serious was the fact that China began challenging the McMahanon line very openly.

"This claim is irrelevant, they were already allies and the US and UK had already agreed to let Pakistan go nuclear."

US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear tests in the 1990s. So that's wrong.

I really don't get what you're arguing about here.

"And in the cases of Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh, China borders all 3 of them, so you can hardly consider China to be foreign to the region."

Bloody hell I'm not saying China is 'foreign' to the region, in fact I made a big point of saying countries reach out to larger balancing partners who have the capability to reach them, so China's relative "closeness" to India's neighbors is a big factor in why those countries look to China to balance against India. Also Bangladesh does not border China.

"Could the UK use its nuclear weapons on a whim? Can the UK on account of its nuclear weapons impose its will on other nations? Even with their substantial military, they too would probably have to yield to the USA or the EU on every issue if hard power was the only factor in play here. "

The point is not that sovereign states need to have unlimited capabilities, but that the scope for foreign policy is directly commensurate with capabilities. States with no capabilities have really no ability to have a foreign policy. The extent to which they have control over foreign policy is limited to issues of low politics that nobody is going to make a fuss over. So while the UK cannot push more powerful countries around, they did quite easily push Argentina around in 1982, not caring much for what their allies or anybody else thought about the matter. China quite frankly doesn't consult its allies Cambodia or Pakistan before it goes pushing its might around the South China Sea. Nor did Russia consult any of their allies before invading Georgia over the S. Ossetia issue.

Why did the UK surrender to Iceland on the fishing issue might have something to do with NATO losing a key base of operations in the middle of the Cold War. Also, this boundary dispute predated Iceland's independence, so even if Iceland was Danish controlled, it's likely not much would have changed. Plus the new Law of the Sea put Iceland in the right in terms of international law.

@Putin,
I don't really see your point. The people of Iceland have their own language, their own culture (obviously heavily influenced by DK primarily, NWY, US? UK, through history, my own country is not much different), it's a relatively remote island, not really close to one major power with one major claim to it such as Taiwan, they want to determine their own course in the world (for example, they wanted to be the first country to recognize the Palestine territory or something, which I find blatantly stupid, but who am I to judge), why should the rest of the world not recognize that?

I really believe Iceland did a great job defining its own security. NATO is a defensive alliance and Iceland has little offensive capacities (I agree with most of your analysis on Iceland's international situation, just not the conclusion) and geographically it's an interesting asset for NATO to have and hence to fight for.

It's a pretty unique place as far as I understand, with geysers and all, a specific tourism sector exploiting these features.

...

Why should this country be governed by Denmark again?

"Nationalism is an out-dated, inherently violent, arbitrary, irrational belief system."

LordTywin says, "Shut f*** up."

It's hardly a belief system. In the case of patriotism I'd say it's more of a slumbering state of mind that activates itself whenever the world cup starts and whenever the EU tries to increase its budget when all states in the EU are trying to decrease theirs. Very healthy, if you ask me, and neither violent, arbitrary, nor irrational.

"So while the UK cannot push more powerful countries around, they did quite easily push Argentina around in 1982, not caring much for what their allies or anybody else thought about the matter." Try reading the accounts of Thatcher and Weinberger and you'll see that what the US and the other allies thought was of paramount importance to both the UK and Argentina. I guess neither is sovereign by your standards.

Also, the cod wars didn't precede Iceland's independence. The new law of the sea wasn't in place when the Cod wars happened but were in some part even influenced by them.

Redhouse, for the record, I agree with you on the Palestine thing. I think it is stupid as well, but it is our right as a sovereign nation. We also were the first country to recognize the Baltic States in 1991, which were breaking up from the USSR. We do a lot of things without asking our allies for permission. For a country with "no capabilities", we sure do a lot of things that Putin says we should not be able to do.

I'm with you, sgs, I agree that it's your right and that it should be.

SGS, please read carefully. I said the dispute preceded Iceland's independence. Prior to the cod wars, Denmark had claimed 13 nautical miles of sea from their shore. This is more or less exactly what Iceland which first led to the dispute.

The Law of Sea was gaining prominence during this time and was on the verge of becoming law. Many countries were already following it. Iceland prevailed because it had already been given all sorts of goodies & rights which could not be taken away without a headache.

Redhouse,

The point is we are in a period where failed states are chronic and occurring all over the world. The reason why is because we grant juridical statehood to entities which have no business having it because we think they're entitled to it some kind of divine right of independence. There are no longer any requirements for statehood. All you have to do these days is barely control your capital city and you're recognized as a state.

"The point is we are in a period where failed states are chronic and occurring all over the world."

Name me some failed states in the OECD?

I apologize for not reading you correctly the first time, and thank you for your clarification. Again though, I think this demonstrates why Iceland should not be a part of Denmark. You say Denmark negotiated a thirteen mile boundary. I think this must come from wikipedia, which omits an important background factor, and you must therefore be forgiven for the inaccuracy, since Denmark didn't negotiate a thirteen mile radius, they claimed it. And what happened? The British refused to recognize it, and eventually forced Denmark to accept a mere three mile area in 1901, which wasn't changed until after Iceland unilaterally started expanding it following their independence. Denmark had no vested interest for the wellbeing of Icelanders and therefore acquiesced when Britain didn't like their claim.

There are no failed states among OECD countries because they acquired statehood almost exclusively by war. So they had to build up the strength of their institutions just to be considered a state. That is not the case for most of the world.

Plus, OECD have criteria for getting. Namely, being a very well functioning government.

So not all parts of the world then, not the OECD part? You're completely wrong, because Iceland is in the middle of that very part of the world where there are no failed states. That's why Iceland is not going to be a failed state.

You're completely right on the other issue you raised tonight though. The time for the big ban is now. But this is not the time for me to meddle in that thread.