Jacob Christensen

The question about the involvement or non-involvement of the Danish Ministry of Defence in the leaking of a story about the deployment of Danish elite troops in Iraq in 2007 has been making the rounds in the media during the last week.

Now, to me there is something deeply problematic about the way the MoD handled the Afghanistan story and to put it bluntly, I wouldn’t buy a used car from someone working there, but somehow the leak story is a minor – and probably not too important – part of a larger story concerning Iraq, something which Niels Krause-Kjær indirectly points to in his latest blog post.

What has had me wondering for quite some time is this: The invasion in Iraq was deeply controversial in a lot of countries and it is fair to say that Tony Blair, José Maria Aznar and maybe one or two other European heads of government effectively lost their mandates due to their decision to support Bush43.

But Denmark stands out as a spectacular exception – it may not be the only country where the government survived Iraq without damage, but the way Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Danish government has managed to make Iraq in general and the question about the breach of international law in particular a complete non-issue in Danish politics is very interesting.

Danish TV2 says so. BBC News doesn’t. Yet.

Ah, nothing like some good old brinkmanship. It’s almost like the crisis deals back in the 1970s.

So, at the moment of writing all signs point to Anders Fogh Rasmussen not becoming the next Secretary General of NATO today, tomorrow or at any later point in time.

Question #1: Why did the Turkish government block the nomination of Anders Fogh Rasmussen?

I’m not really competent to answer this one but let us note that two, partially competing explanations have been pit forward – first, the cartoon thing (“Turkey as the spokesman of the United Muslim World”), second the ROJ TV thing (Turkish nationalists vs. Kurdish political forces – Juan Cole notes that nationalist parties gained in the recent local elections in Turkey).

The Turks probably play a longer game here. A SG really isn’t that important and it is a case of manifesting the country’s importance internally and externally. Calls for a permament future exclusion of Turkey from the EU isn’t that much of a real-world threat.

Question #2: What will the ditching of Anders Fogh Rasmussen mean for Danish politics?

First, AFR and the Liberals are left with a nasty problem. For all effects, AFR has publicly stated that he wants to leave as Danish PM, and I cannot recall a situation where a PM has managed to return with his authority even remotely intact. From now on, AFR is damaged goods and he cannot lead the Liberals into the next elections. If I was AFR’s spin doctor, I would advise him to make a graceful exit as soon as possible and make way for Lars Løkke Rasmussen. The alternative will be a dirty struggle for the Liberal leadership. (I intend to get back on this one in a later post).

Second, I would imagine the Danish People’s Party to make the most of the situation. If the Turkish government plays the Muslim card internationally, DF will play the Muslim card nationally and they’ll do so big time. Heck, DF would even defend the Kurds if they had to.

Third, ever since the outbreak of the cold war, Liberals and Conservatives in Denmark have tended to have a very romantic view of the US in general and US-Danish relations in particular.

Now we’re in a situation where loyal Danish support for US foreign policies hasn’t paid off – okay, the SG thing is perhaps more symbolic than material, but still: If you were Barack Obama and had to choose between taking the side of Denmark (5,5 million and bordering on Sweden¹ ) and Turkey (76 million and bordering on Syria, Iraq and Iran), which country would be most important to accommodate? Denmark isn’t the most relevant of countries.

Participation in the Afghanistan and Iraq missions as well as a number of other out-of-area missions since the mid-1990s have stretched Danish military capacities and the question is if the ideological perspective (support the US at all costs) or a more realist small-state perspective (is there anything in this for us or should we rather go with France and Germany?) will prevail in Danish security policy for the coming years.

Update: You might not think so, but I am in fact ROFLMAO. Maybe it was my visit to the laundry room which sealed it. Anyway AFR for GS and a Turkish deputy – that is a classic and a Thing of Beauty. But ask Barack Obama, and he will say that this was the important part of the summit.

1. okay, okay – Greenland, but just to hammer home the point [↩]

Well, if Claus Hjort Frederiksen, Minister of Employment and Hatchet Man of the Liberal Party, comments Fogh Rasmussen’s chances for becoming the next Secretary General of NATO, then we are very, very close. The point isn’t that Mr. Frederiksen includes a number of reservations, the point is that he even as much as mentions AFR’s chances. Frederiksen is a much too senior and much too experienced politician to make a slip of the tongue when it comes to the position of the prime minister.

Update 2009-04-03: The Danish Foreign Ministry sticks out its neck as well.

Finance minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen to stay away from EU meeting in the week-end due to a family occasion.

Well, if it was that important, a possible hand-over would probably take place on Monday, so I can’t see any formal reasons why LLR shouldn’t be able to go.

The Never-Ending Story, part 817.

No, you don’t need an excuse to resign as prime minister. All you have to say is: “I’ve held this position for nearly eight years and I think I’ve done my part now. I don’t know what I’ll be doing in the future, but if an interesting offer turns up, then I may consider it. Now, be kind to Lars, he’s a good lad at heart.”

PS: I my world, the premiership is not a “job” but a “political position”.

Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post throws his hat into the ring and says Canada!

Washington would reward Canada for its valiant combat performance in Afghanistan by putting Defense Minister Peter MacKay in the job. But European countries feel that this is not the time to break a tradition of giving the post to a European (who would presumably have a surer feel for Europe’s complex politics). The all-too-predictable catch: There is no European consensus candidate.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen would be a standout choice, particularly as Denmark’s soldiers have also performed heroically in the Afghan war. But Rasmussen is considering running for a fourth term at home and would have to be drafted by the alliance. Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store is another Scandinavian possibility, and Poland and Bulgaria also have candidates running.

Süddeutsche Zeitung declares that a certain Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is a candidate for the office as Secretary General of NATO. SZ even offers a good short portrait of Mr. Rasmussen.

All we can say from here is: Løkke til, Anders.

So the old rumour mill is working overtime – helped by the Danish defence minister, no less – and an order for ten bespoke suits has been placed.

Well, just to hedge my bets, I’ve set up a Rasmussen-Rasmussen section on the Political Reviews page. If you’re looking for more gossip, I will have to disappoint you. If you are more into historical parallels (and lack thereof), the links are for your entertainment.

Update: Please pardon my French. It’s attendant, not attendent. And I got a “13″ in my high school exams…

Between you and me, I’ll admit that DR’s Tage Baumann has been one of my favourites for a long time. He knows a bit about how defence policy and international organisations work and here he discusses Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s chances of becoming the next Secretary General of NATO.