In the Icelandic fisheries a sustainable and profitable system has been developed, that of individual transferable quotas, ITQs, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, RNH Research Director, said at an international conference on the ‘Blue Economy’ — on security at sea and the utilisation of marine resources — held in Gdynia in Poland 22 September 2018. Polish MEP Anna Fotyga, a former Foreign Minister of her country, organised the conference where topics discussed included the concept of the open sea, possibilities and challenges in the Arctic and aggression by the Russians in the Black Sea and by the Chinese in the South China Sea. Other speakers included Mark Gróbarczyk, Polish Minister of Maritime Affairs, Rear Admiral Tomasz Szubrycht, Rear Admiral Nils Wang, former Head of the Royal Danish Navy, James Bergeron, political adviser to Commander, Allied Maritime Command in Northwood, United Kingdom, and Batu Kutelia, former Ambassador of Georgia to the United States. In his talk, Professor Gissurarson emphasised that the Icelandic system of individual transferable quotas had developed without depriving anyone of any significant right: the only right which had been removed was that of harvesting fish at zero profit, as fisheries economists had demonstrated would be the case under open access; and by definition this right was worthless. Therefore initial allocation of quotas on the basis of catch history (often called ‘grandfathering’) was the only politically feasible way of introducing an ITQ system in fisheries. Gissurarson pointed out that Locke had set the proviso on private appropriation from the commons that nobody be worse off by it, and that this was the case with the initial allocation of individual transferable quotas in the Icelandic fisheries.

Professor Gissurarson has published two books in English on the fisheries, Overfishing: The Icelandic Solution (2000) and The Icelandic Fisheries: Sustainable and Profitable (2015). He also recently published Green Capitalism: How to Protect the Environment by Defining Private Property Rights (2018).

Government ministers, admirals, members of parliament and speakers at the Gdynia conference.

Gissurarson Slides in Gdynia 22 March 2019

RNH is offering an exciting programme in the next few months. At the end of 2018 two reports in English by RNH Research Director Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson were published by the free-market think tank New Direction in Brussels. One was Why Conservatives Should Support the Free Market and the other one was Spending Other People’s Money: A Critique of Rawls, Piketty and Other Redistributionists. They will be introduced in more detail later. Professor Gissurarson gives a talk on how to make the fisheries sustainable and profitable at an international conference in Gdynia in Poland 22 March 2019. He gives another talk on Nordic liberalism at the APEE annual conference on Paradise Island in the Bahamas 6 April. In May, Gissurarson goes on a lecture tour about his report on Rawls and Piketty, in connection with the Free Market Road Show: in Thessaloniki 6 May, Athens 7 May, London 9 May and Stockholm 10 May.

Ragnar Arnason

At the end of 2018, the book In Defence of Western Civilisation: Speeches by Six Writers 1950–1958 was also published (in Icelandic). The authors are poet Tomas Gudmundsson, novelists Gunnar Gunnarsson, Kristmann Gudmundsson and Gudmundur G. Hagalin, and poets Sigurdur Einarsson in Holt and David Stefansson from Fagriskogur. Taking their lead from the book, Professors Stefan Snaevarr and Hannes H. Gissurarson debate the concept of totalitarianism at a seminar in Room 101 in Oddi at the University of Iceland 17 May, 16–18. Professor Olafur Th. Hardarson is chairing the meeting which is followed by a reception at Litla-Hama. RNH also participates in the organisation of an international conference in honour of Professor Ragnar Arnason in the festivities hall at the University of Iceland 14 June 2019, 16–18. Speakers at the conference include some of the world’s best-known fisheries economists, Gordon Munro, Trond Bjorndal, James Wilen and Rognvaldur Hannesson. The President of the School of Social Sciences, Dr. Dadi Mar Kristofersson, addresses Arnason who turned 70 in early 2019. Afterwards there is a reception in Litla-Hama. The Public Book Club publishes a festschrift for Ragnar, a collection of his scholarly papers, on the occasion of the conference.

RNH and the Public Book Club celebrate the 70th anniversary of NATO, the defence alliance of Western democracies, 4 April 2019 by reprinting two books from the Cold War: The God That Failed was written by Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Wright, André Gide, Louis Fischer and Stephen Spender. The Future of Small Nations: Speeches in the Nordic Countries 1946–1949 is by Norwegian poet Arnulf Øverland. His visit to Iceland in the spring of 1948 had a great impact on public opinion, and a year later Iceland decided to join Norway and Denmark in signing the North Atlantic Treaty, as Øverland had urged. RNH will also support a regional meeting of the Students for Liberty Europe to be held 6 September, with Daniel Hannan as the keynote speaker.

The ceremony in front of Government House in Reykjavik on 1 December 1918. Three of the authors of the book published by AB were there: David Stefansson, Gudmundur G. Hagalin and Tomas Gudmundsson, all turning against the communist threat.

Iceland became a sovereign state on 1 December 1918. On the 100th anniversary of Icelandic sovereignty, 1 December 2018, RNH Academic Director Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson published a paper in Morgunbladid. He argued that ever since the foundation of the Icelandic Commonwealth in 930 Iceland had been a sovereign state in a Hegelian sense, as a unifying force, a meeting ground for mutual adjustment. The 930–1262 Commonwealth had been an interesting example of law without government. But Iceland only became a sovereign state in a Weberian sense, as an institution with monopoly of coercion, on 1 December 1918. For decades after that, the sovereign Icelandic state had been threatened by a revolutionary party backed by a foreign totalitarian state: Local communists had fought for what they themselves called Soviet-Iceland, gaining more electoral support than comparable parties elsewhere: 19.5% in the elections of 1946 and 1949. Some distinguished poets and novelists had however confronted them and criticised their attempts, financed by Moscow, to control Icelandic culture: Tomas Gudmundsson, Gunnar Gunnarsson, Kristmann Gudmundsson, Gudmundur G. Hagalin, Sigurdur Einarsson in Holt, and David Stefansson from Fagriskogur. On the 100th anniversary of Icelandic sovereignty, the Public Book Club, Almenna bokafelagid, published speeches by them, In Defence of Western Civilisation (Til varnar vestraenni menningu), edited and annotated by Gissurarson.

Against fierce opposition from local communists, Iceland had enjoyed the protection and support of the United States from 1941 onwards, enabling her in 1952–75 to extend the fisheries limits from 3 to 200 miles, a crucial move for a small nation with little natural resources other than fertile fishing grounds. However, the ‘American Age’ of Icelandic history had come to an end in 2006 when the US military base in Keflavik was closed. After this Iceland has had few friends, as was amply demonstrated during the 2008 bank collapse. Icelandic leaders seemed also to have lost their self-esteem, as was shown by their appeasement of foreign powers in the Icesave dispute. Gissurarson suggested that one reason might be how the Icelandic struggle for independence had been denigrated in modern textbooks. More than two generations of Icelanders had been indoctrinated in schools against the deep and strong national sentiment of the Icelanders, which had found political expression in the foundation of a sovereign state in 1918. Gissurarson’s paper forms a part of the joint project of RNH and ACRE, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, on ‘Europe, Iceland, and the Free Market’.

Gissurarson paper 1 December 2018

RNH Academic Director, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson, gave a talk at the Independence Party Association of Kopavogur Saturday 17 November 2018 on the recent report by the Social Science Research Institute of the University of Iceland about the 2008 bank collapse, a report written under his supervision. Gissurarson rejected some explanations offered for the collapse, such as “patriarchy”, or the liberal Icelandic 1874 Constitution, or “neoliberalism”. He said that the use of an Anti-Terrorism Act by the British government against Iceland in the 2008 financial crisis had been both unnecessary and brutal. Moreover, during the crisis the British government had discriminated on the basis of nationality (which was prohibited according to the rules of the European internal market) by assisting all British banks except the two owned by Icelanders. Gissurarson also criticised some of his colleagues at the University of Iceland for supporting the British rather than the Icelandic cause in the Icesave conflict. He wondered why they had wanted to see the nation driven into a debt prison. Was it because they fancied themselves becoming prison wardens? It was, Gissurarson submitted, a complete misunderstanding that the Icelanders had discriminated against British depositors by the Emergency Act of 2008. On the contrary: They had given all depositors, British as well as Icelandic, priority claims against the banks over other creditors, for example German and American banks. If there was any discrimination according to the Emergency Act, then it was between all depositors on the one hand and other creditors on the other hand, while such discrimination could be justified by force majeure.

Law student David Orn Jonsson chaired the well-attended meeting, and after Gissurarson’s talk many topics were brought up, such as the controversial 2008 emergency loan to Kaupthing, the 2002 privatisation of the banks, and the contrast between the decent behaviour of the Poles and the Faroese while Iceland was struggling and the unhelpfulness of the other Nordic nations. In response, Gissurarson described the course of events in the Kaupthing loan issue. The managers of Kaupthing had told the governors of the Central Bank of Iceland that it was the government’s will that the CBI extended an emergency loan to Kaupthing. One of the CBI governors had contacted the Prime Minister who confirmed this, and a tape existed of their conversation. The governors probably would have preferred extending an emergency loan to Landsbanki, but they did not want to go against the will of the government, although they, and not the government, were ultimately responsible for the decision. For the loan, the CBI governors had taken collateral worth double the loan, and it had been a general collateral, for all Kaupthing’s debts to the CBI. However, the new CBI governor replacing them after the collapse had been tricked into selling the collateral, the Danish FIH Bank, at a fraction of its worth. The buyers, including pension funds in Denmark and Sweden, had made a huge profit, as described in a Danish book, Kunsten at tømme en bank og slippe godt fra det (The Art of Emptying a Whole Bank and Get Away with It).

Gissurarson argued that possibly it had not been sensible to privatise the two government banks at the same time in 2002, but that this had been insisted on by the Progressive Party, the junior partner in the government. The banks would have fetched a higher price in total, if they had been sold one after the other. The two groups of buyers had also been different. The S-Group buying Bunadarbanki had been closely aligned with the Progressive Party, as the leader of the group had been the Party’s Vice-Chairman and a government minister. A covert deal had obviously been made immediately to resell the bank to Kaupthing. The Samson Group of three entrepreneurs buying Landsbanki had on the other hand not been aligned in any way with the Independence Party. One member of the group had been a supporter of the Progressive Party, a second was completely apolitical, according to his own pronouncements, while the third one, Bjorgolfur Gudmundsson, certainly had been an active member of the Independence Party in the past, but then in the opposition to Party Leader David Oddsson. Whereas there was no enmity between Gudmundsson and Oddsson, they therefore could not in any way be regarded at the time of privatisation as friends or political allies. Discussing the bank privatisations, Gissurarson quoted Milan Kundera who said that man proceeds on his path in life, not in complete darkness, but in fog. “But when he looks back to judge people of the past, he sees no fog on their path. From his present, which was their faraway future, their path looks perfectly clear to him, good visibility all the way. Looking back, he sees the path, he sees the people proceeding, he sees their mistakes, but not the fog.” On the wisdom of hindsight, it would have been sensible to sell all the bank shares in open tender, ensuring at least initially widely dispersed ownership, as then Prime Minister David Oddsson originally had wanted, against fierce opposition. Of course, some companies would probably have collected together enough shares to gain control, quite possibly the very same groups who eventually bought major shares in the banks. Gissurarson added that he was not sure the Icelandic bankers would have behaved in any other way under different ownership. Bankers all around the world had engaged in risky behaviour before the financial crisis, and some of them had behaved even worse than their Icelandic colleagues who had been reckless rather than criminal. Gissurarson’s talk formed a part of the joint project by RNH and ACRE, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, on “Europe, Iceland and the Free Market”.

Gissurarson Slides in Kopavogur

Bled in Slovenia.

The Platform for Memory and Conscience held its annual general meeting in Bled in Slovenia 15 November 2018. On behalf of RNH, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson attended. Prior to the annual meeting, an international conference on “The Dark Side of the Moon” took place in Ljubljana 13–14 November, about the memories of the nations in Central and Eastern Europe oppressed by communism after the Second World War, only regaining their freedom in 1989–1991. At the Ljubljana conference, Gissurarson gave a lecture on the voices of the victims, proceeding from Elie Wiesel’s observation, that the executioner always kills twice, the second time by silence. Gissurarson lamented the fact that communism was generally not condemned as clearly as Nazism, even if there was ample reason to do so, bearing in mind man-made famines, mass executions, deportations of nationalities, operation of slave camps, terror and squalor.

Gissurarson Dr. Pawel Ukielski and Dr. Lukasz Kaminski. Photo: Peter Rendek, Platform.

Gissurarson described six ways to break the silence, to bring light to the dark side of the moon. 1) Universities, especially faculties of humanities and social science, had been captured by the hard left. Therefore, independent institutes had to provide opportunities for anti-totalitarian scholars to pursue their studies. 2) It had to be ensured that students in publicly-funded schools received proper information about the historical crimes of all totalitarians, communists as well as Nazis. For example it had to be recalled that Stalin had been Hitler’s ally in the first two years of the Second World War. 3) Memorials about the victims and Museums on totalitarian terror had to be established and maintained. 4) All public recognition of people guilty of totalitarian crimes had to be withdrawn, such as statues, street names, medals and other honours. T-shirts of Che Guevara were just as inappropriate as of Himmler. 5) Conferences and seminar had to be held regularly to make available new research on totalitarianism, for example the remarkable new light thrown on the terror regime of the Chinese communists in Frank Dikötter’s recent trilogy, and the path-breaking Black Book of Communism, published in 1997.

The seventh way of breaking the silence about and of the victims was to make relevant but out-of-print works on totalitarianism accessible, as the Public Book Club (AB) was doing in Iceland with its series about the history of communism. Already ten books had been reprinted in the series, including Essays on Communism by Bertrand Russell, Baltic Eclipse by Ants Oras, and I Chose Freedom by Victor Kravchenko. Gissurarson said that three books would be published in the series in the near future: The Future of the Small Nations, by Norwegian poet Arnulf Øverland, The God that Failed, by six prominent intellectuals, including Arthur Koestler, André Gide and Ignazio Silone, and In Defence of Western Civilisation: Speeches by Seven Writers in 1950–8, the authors being poet Tomas Gudmundsson, novelist Gunnar Gunnarsson, novelist Kristmann Gudmundsson, the Rev. Sigurdur Palsson, novelist Gudmundur G. Hagalin, poet the Rev. Sigurdur Einarsson, and poet David Stefansson. History sometimes reduced people to numbers. Our task was, professor Gissurarson said, to turn numbers into people.

Gissurarson Slides in Ljubljana

The Ljubljana conference was held in Parliamentary House in the city centre. Slovenia’s President, Borut Pahor, and the Speaker of the Slovenian Parliament, Alojz Kovšca, addressed the conference, which was also attended by former Prime Minister Janez Janša and the ambassadors of Ukraine and Poland to Slovenia. At the annual meeting in Bled, Professor Łukasz Kamiński from Poland was re-elected President, and also the members of the Executive Board, Dr. Andreja Valič Zver from Slovenia, Dr. Wolfgang-Christian Fuchs from Germany, Dr. Toomas Hiio from Estonia and Zsolt Szilágyi  from Hungary. Peter Rendek was hired as executive director, replacing dr. Neela Winkelmann. Gissurarson’s lecture formed a part of the joint project of RNH and ACRE, Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, on “Europe of the Victims”.

The opening session of LIBERTYCON at the Maksoud Plaza Hotel in São Paulo.

The success of the Nordic countries can be explained, not by social democracy, but by free trade, the rule of law and social cohesion brought about by homogeneity and a long shared history, RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson argued at a very well-attended conference of (classical) liberal students in Brazil, LIBERTYCON, 12–13 October 2018 in São Paulo. Other speakers at the conference included Brazilian scholars Adriano Gianturco and Bruno Garschagen, Judge Bruno Bodart and some Brazilian libertarian activists and businessmen. Foreign speakers came from Atlas Network, the international Students for Liberty and other organisations. Fernando Henrique Miranda, André Freo and their fellow Brazilian student leaders organised the conference, held at Maksoud Plaza Hotel and attended by more than 800 people, with tickets sold out.

In his lecture Gissurarson recalled that the Finnish-Swedish priest Anders Chydenius had proposed the “invisible hand” before Adam Smith and that the liberal tradition had been strong in the Nordic countries in the 19th century, as was evident from the Constitution which the Norwegians accepted at Eidsvoll in 1814, one of the most liberal constitutions in the world at the time. Johan August Gripenstedt, a disciple of Frédèric Bastiat, was one of Sweden’s most influential politicians. As a government minister in 1848–1866 he laid the foundations for the unbroken period of economic growth in Sweden for a century after 1870. The Social Democrats who came into power in the 1930s enjoyed the fruits of this economic growth. However, their “Swedish Model” of high taxes and rapid expansion of the public sector, implemented in 1970–1990, proved to be unsustainable, and the Swedes have been gradually moving away from it since. Even in tiny Iceland there has been a liberal tradition, defended and developed by Jon Sigurdsson, the leader of Iceland’s independence struggle, Arnljotur Olafsson, the author of the first book on economics published in Icelandic, and Jon Thorlaksson, the founder and first leader of Iceland’s largest political party, the Independence Party.

Gissurarson’s Slides in São Paulo

Gissurarson was asked what advice he could give the Brazilians. He replied that three witches seemed to be hovering over Brazil: Their names were Violence, Corruption, and Poverty. The Brazilians had to drive those three witches out of their country by various means, including that of heavier punishments for violent crimes. With increased public security, the opportunities of poor people to reach prosperity peacefully, by their own hard work, would increase. Foreigners often concentrated on income inequality in Brazil. Possibly at present the wealth of some Brazilians was derived from privileges and monopolies unlike what would be the case in more competitive economies, but experience has taught mankind that the poor did not become richer by the rich becoming poorer. What was most important, Gissurarson said, was to create opportunities for the poor to become richer, while tough competition, especially in the capital market, could see to it that the rich would have to exert themselves in order to maintain their wealth; it was a principle of the free market that a fool and his money were soon parted. Bureaucracy was also stifling the growth of small businesses in Brazil. Gissurarson’s participation in the conference formed a part of the joint project by RNH and ACRE, Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe, on Europe, Iceland and the Free Market. At the end of the conference, Hélio Beltrão, Director of the Mises Institute in São Paulo, presented Gissurarson with a book, História do liberalismo brasileiro (History of Brazilian Liberalism), by philosopher Antonio Paim.

The organising team, from left Jehan Piero Giuliani Dall’Asta, Ivanildo Santos Terceiro, Fernando Henrique Miranda, Nycollas Liberato and André Freo.