The publisher of Iceland’s DV newspaper and former aide to the Prime Minister, Hreinn Loftsson says in an opinion piece that the Icesave question will not be satisfactorily answered without the assistance of high-level and impartial international help. He believes Althingi and the Icelandic government should ask Bill Clinton to work for them as a mediator.
Loftsson says on DV.is that it has been sad to follow Althingi’s Icesave debates in recent days and weeks. He believes that with such strong and organised opposition from the parliamentary opposition parties and nearly 30,000 signatories to a petition calling on the President to veto the Icesave loan agreement if and when it passes parliament, further negotiations between Iceland, the Netherlands and the UK are the only way.
Unlike in the previous two rounds of discussions, this time Iceland should be represented by somebody like Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States – somebody internationally recognised and with a proven track record of being a good and impartial mediator. The mediator would also serve as an anchor for Iceland’s politicians who have largely been acting shamefully, using Icesave to score political points when they should be speaking to the world with a united voice, Loftsson believes.
Loftsson describes the bill currently being debated by parliament as salt to Iceland’s wounds which was deliberately applied when the Netherlands and the UK decided to reject some of Iceland’s proposed changes to the agreement in the summer. Iceland simply cannot tolerate the unfairness of the Icesave debt burden as it currently stands, he says.
Only an international statesman wishing to commit career suicide would want to publicly support Iceland’s weasel tactics. Those might be in short supply.
Iceland’s brief uber-wealth and success were funded by the savings of British and Dutch depositors. The Icelandic nation wined and dined itself to excess on the credit and loans they took from their own banks, bankrolled by British and Dutch tax payers. Sadly as Icelanders nurse their hangovers, British and Dutch tax payers (“people”) are left to pick up the tab for Iceland’s morning after.
The really shameful thing is that Iceland is absolutely cementing its international reputation as a bunch of untrustworthy pirates who can’t be relied upon to live up to agreements they have signed, let alone their moral obligations. That is the real legacy which this generation of Icelanders is leaving behind for their children: the stigma of an international business community that will shun Icelandic business for years to come.
Bill?
Clinton?
Bill didn’t achieve anything (except some fame among women).
But what about inviting Tony Blair then? He is free now :))))
Hreinn Loftsson must be kidding…or raving.
I agree that binding mediation is the best route for resolving the Icesave dispute. However, Iceland withdrew from the formal mediation process. What would be different for this proposed second attempt?
And it’s unclear in this article whether the intention is for Bill Clinton to represent Iceland’s interests or be an impartial mediator. Is his mediation role to be transformative, facilitative, or evaluative? Anyway, he’d definitely need to purchase some additional liability insurance!
Career Suicide? Nah.
Sounds like you need a Shameless Retail Politico.
Who else tops the list. Any people who puts their
faith in Bill Clinton gets precisely what they deserve. This is evolution in action!
Dorrit Moussaieff for president of Iceland!
No come on – play fair, Kjoll!
I am no lover of the Icelandic bankers or government, but not wanting to accept the Icesave deal as it stands is hardly “weasel tactics”.
It is an unprecedented situation that would require all revenue from 70,000 tax payers just to cover the interest.
“Dorrit Moussaieff for president of Iceland!”
How about a slightly worn Indian princess ?
http://www.goa-world.com/goa/leoncie/
surely not worse.
Jimbo (original Jim) said:
“I agree that binding mediation is the best route for resolving the Icesave dispute. However, Iceland withdrew from the formal mediation process. What would be different for this proposed second attempt?”
Iceland didn’t withdraw, it simply refused to accept the legally binding and FINAL decision that was given. Iceland agreed to accept the decision when it started the mediation and it has accepted to judgement to pay back the Icesave depositors – Icelandic politicians are simply lying to their electorate about it.
Peter – I think you’re mistaken. My understanding is that Iceland withdrew from arbitration and, following that, a default judgement was recorded (which Iceland obviously didn’t agree with). However, if you can provide a link to a reference that demonstrates otherwise, please do…
This discussion has descended into farce. Folks, please push the reset button and start all over again. This is a serious matter.
Proverb: “Life is what happens to you while you’re planning and talking about what to do.”