Bretar hefðu aldrei beitt hryðjuverkalögum gegn stórri þjóð
Í lok nóvember flutti Steingrímur J. Sigfússon ræðu fyrir stjórnarnefnd Evrópuráðsþingsins en í henna sitja landsdeildir, formenn flokkahópa og formenn málefnanefnda þingsins. Tilefni ræðunnar var aðgerðir breta gegn Íslendingum í Icesave-deilunni og skýrði Steingrímur málstað Íslands. Ræðan er svohljóðandi:
SJS Talking Points – PACE Standing Committee Meeting – 28th of November in Madrid
Mr. President, distinguished colleagues.
We are grateful for being able to have this debate.
There is of course a lot to discuss regarding the global financial crisis and its economic, social and political consequences, but I will stick to the special case of Iceland and the consequences of actions taken against Iceland by the UK Government.
The UK Government used its Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act against the Icelandic bank – Landsbanki – on the 8th of October.
The Landsbanki Freezing Order was listed next to terrorist organizations and regimes such as Al Quaida and the Taliban on the Treasury website.
The freezing order was issued at ten (10) in the morning, entering into force ten (10) minutes later.
This was done without any consultation with the Government of Iceland.
The stated reason was to make sure that the Icelandic Government would honor its legal obligations with respect to UK savers who had money in the Icelandic bank in question.
Moreover, the UK subsidiaries of Landsbanki and another Icelandic bank – Kaupthing - the largest bank in Iceland - were forcefully taken into administration, again without any consultation.
And Prime Minister Brown announced on BBC news the intention of his Government to freeze the assets of Icelandic companies and, I quote, “take further action against the Icelandic authorities wherever that is necessary to recover money”.
It is necessary to stress at this point that the banks had been operating in full compliance with UK and European banking laws which govern financial services within in the European Economic Area.
The measures of the UK Government immediately rendered all efforts made by Icelandic parties to halt the downward development of the financial system futile.
On the 8th of October, the Icelandic financial system virtually collapsed, and on the 20th of November Iceland was the first Western European nation since 1976 to get an loan from the International Monetary Fund. Ironically, the country before us in 1976 was Great Britain if I am not mistaken.
Iceland is facing the worst economic recession ever. GDP will go down by about 10% in year 2009, unemployment rise from about nothing to 7-10%, and national debt increase from about 10-20% of GDP to 110-130% in less than two years time.
In other words, one member state of the European Council was instrumental in bringing down the economy of another member state.
Of course, Icelanders themselves are mainly responsible for what has happened. And of course we are sorry for the ordinary people who have gotten into trouble in connection with the operation of Icelandic banks in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and so forth. But those were private banks, just as Lehman Brothers and others. In the case of other banks, however, there was no use of Anti-Terrorism laws.
===========================
The measures carried out by the UK Government caused a lot of confusion and misunderstanding – a confusion that manifested itself in a critical disruption of currency transactions to and from Iceland seriously hurting the reputation and interest of Icelandic companies in the UK and elsewhere.
============================
The confusion stemmed from the original freezing order that was worded in such as way that it was difficult for UK financial institutions to understand its implication.
It was not until nine (9) days later that the Treasury took steps towards damage control by publishing a notice proving detailed guidance and stressing that other Icelandic banks and companies were not affected by the order.
This notice was published very late despite the obvious damaging impact on the Icelandic economy, as well as the interest of the UK Government to refrain as much as possible from any actions leading to the further worsening of the Icelandic economy.
================
The application of the Anti-Terrorism legislation against a close ally and a friendly neighbor – is an unprecedented and highly disproportionate act that makes no sense - particularly not during this crisis that calls for solidarity and common solutions.
That in turn raises serious questions about the real intention behind the application of the Anti-Terrorism legislation.
And at the same time it directs the attention to the question about potential misuse of such legislations for purposes other than originally intended.
At a time as now, when we are reminded of the horrors of real terrorism in Mumbai in India, we shall keep this in mind.
======================
In the case of Iceland and the UK, the issue at stake was the interests of about 300 thousand savers who had money with the Icelandic bank in the UK which assets were frozen.
The deposits of the failing Icelandic bank constituted less than 0.5% of all UK deposits.
The stated reason for applying the Anti-Terrorism legislation against Landsbanki was according to the UK Minister of Treasury on the BBC radio the following, and I quote: "The Icelandic government have told me, believe it or not, they have no intention of honouring their obligations".
This he said after telephone conversations with his Icelandic counterpart.
In contrast with the statement of Mr. Darling, the Government of Iceland has never defaulted on its legal obligations and has always said that it would honour its legal obligation in the case of Icesave.
That intention is among other things supported by the Financial Times, which published a transcript of the telephone conversations between the two ministers. The Financial Times reported the following:
“At no point does Mr Mathiesen [the Icelandic Minister of Finance] state?.that Iceland would not honour its obligations. Instead, he says that Iceland plans to use its compensation scheme to try to meet obligations to British depositors.“
No one is denying that it was not fully certain what the said legal obligations entailed, as no one had anticipated such a crisis – a collapse of almost an entire baking system in a country – at the time of the introduction of the relevant EU directives.
Determining that issue, however, should have been done by means of bilateral talks conducted in good faith or legal proceedings as a last resort.
The UK Government ruled out legal proceedings – a position that eventually became a common EU position as none wanted to contest EU rules. And instead of bilateral talks conducted in good faith, the UK Government applied its Anti-Terrorism Legislation.
The Anti-terrorism Act has never before been used against an entity of a European Council state or for that matter an partner of the European Economic Area or a NATO ally.
If there would not have been for domestic political reasons, and the fact that the UK population is 60 millions as opposed to the 314 thousand living in Iceland, my guess is that the UK Government would not have used its Anti-Terrorism Legislation.
Or to put it differently, does anyone believe that the UK Government would have used the Anti-Terrorism legislation against a fellow EU country or an ally such as the United States given the same circumstances?
In the opinion of many in Iceland and others the answer is No.
To name one, Sir Howard Davies, the former head of the Financial Services Authority, who also served as the deputy governor of the Bank of England and is now director of the London School of Economics, has attacked the Britain's behavior towards Icelandic banks. He claimed that the U.K. Government was using “beggar-my-neighbor” strategy which refer to those that seek benefits for one country at the expense of others.
==========================
Last but not least, the Icelandic nation was in effect made the target of defamation which aggravated further the serious financial and the economic crisis in Iceland by statements made by the UK Government and aired on all international media.
And “believe it or not” when Prime Minister Brown and other UK ministers claim on international media that “the Icelandic Government had no intention honoring its legal obligations” their words carry huge weight.
In conclusion, it is totally unacceptable to respond to a failure in the banking sector in ONE country by using legislation that carries with it the stigma of terrorism.
It leads anybody immediately to the conclusion that the measures taken are part of the fight against terrorism.
Iceland has always stressed the importance of respect for the rule of law and human rights in the fight against terrorism. Otherwise, terrorists will succeed in changing the principles what we have so proudly been building our societies on.
Considering the seriousness of the crime of terrorism, using Anti-Terrorism legislation to respond to a failure in the banking system sets a very dangerous precedent by risking to undermine these principles and the credibility of OUR common fight against terrorism.
Therefore do we, the members in the Icelandic Delegation, urge you, Parliamentarians in the UK, to put powers to respond to economic failures, in a separate legislation to prevent such an a misleading attack on the reputation of entities and authorities of a country that has nothing to do with terrorism.
We also urge the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to consider the matter and all its political, legal and human rights sides and implications.
Thank you for your attention.