Churchill’s Words Revisited: A Lesson in Historical Interpretation
Winston Churchill once suggested that history would be kind to him because he intended to write it. Although this quote isn’t verbatim, it captures the essence of how influential figures can shape public perception through their narratives. This concept resonates today, especially as three former Icelandic politicians release books aiming to influence how key events of the 21st century are remembered.
The Politicians and Their Narratives
Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, former President of Iceland, has released a book featuring excerpts from his diaries, focusing on referendums concerning media laws and the Icesave dispute. His writings offer sharp criticisms of political adversaries and allies alike. Meanwhile, Geir H. Haarde, former Prime Minister, has authored a best-selling autobiography, delving into his upbringing, political career, and the financial crisis that led to his trial before the national court. Lastly, the late Svavar Gestsson, former MP and minister, presents his perspective on the Icesave negotiations with the UK and the Netherlands in a posthumously published book.
Diverse Perspectives on Icesave
The three books provide differing accounts of Iceland’s handling of the Icesave issue. Grimsson highlights his role in reinforcing the power of referendums, arguing it led to a democratic shift where the populace, rather than political parties, held legislative power. Haarde, on the other hand, defends his administration’s crisis management, asserting that they acted within legal constraints and were unfairly targeted by political decisions leading to his prosecution. Gestsson claims the Icesave agreement was beneficial, as evidenced by Iceland not having to pay any amount under its terms. However, political maneuvers allegedly exploited the situation for personal gain.
Controversial Memo and Its Implications
A memorandum signed by Icelandic and Dutch finance ministers in October 2008, shortly after the banking collapse, sparked varied interpretations. It stipulated that Iceland would guarantee loans taken by the Dutch to compensate Icesave account holders up to a statutory limit. Haarde argues that this memorandum was used by the left-wing government to unjustly blame the Independence Party, while Gestsson felt it complicated matters for Icelandic authorities, despite their quick departure from its terms.
Haarde negotiated a 5.55% interest rate with a seven-year grace period while settling Landsbanki’s assets, contrasting with the initial agreement of 6.7% interest over ten years. He contends that the issue should not have burdened the Icelandic treasury, describing the memorandum as a non-binding agreement on certain key points rather than a definitive contract.
The Role of Referendums in Iceland’s Democracy
Olafur Ragnar Grimsson is perhaps best remembered for his decision to refer the Icesave dispute to a national referendum. In his book, he reveals that he initially encouraged Parliament to approve the first agreement with conditions, which he signed. However, the UK and the Netherlands rejected these conditions. By December 2009, he began expressing doubts about signing subsequent legislation, pondering the implications for Iceland’s foreign relations and his standing with the government he helped form.
Svavar Gestsson questions Grimsson’s sincerity in the Icesave matter, suggesting that the President’s opposition stemmed more from political calculations than genuine concern for the nation. Gestsson implies that Grimsson’s stance allowed him to convince the public that rejecting the Icesave agreements would absolve them of financial responsibility, labeling this position as unethical.
Varied Focus and Intentions
The books cover different time frames and issues. Haarde’s autobiography spans 70 years, while Grimsson’s diary excerpts focus on media laws and Icesave, and Gestsson’s book is solely about the Icesave negotiations. Grimsson dedicates a 70-page chapter to media laws, a topic Haarde doesn’t address in his book. Haarde, however, discusses the national court case, criticizing the decision to prosecute him and questioning the motives behind it.
Why Write a Book? The Authors’ Perspectives
The motivations behind these political memoirs vary. Gestsson contemplated writing his book since 2009, aiming to present the facts as he saw them. Some criticize Grimsson for revealing private conversations, but he defends this by highlighting the public’s growing interest in understanding the past to shape the future. Haarde’s book, a decade in the making, seeks to offer his account and analysis of events post-crisis, underscoring the necessity of his narrative.
These books not only provide insights into Iceland’s recent history but also serve as a reminder of the power of storytelling in shaping historical perceptions. They challenge readers to consider multiple viewpoints and reflect on how history is recorded and remembered.