Jacob Christensen

Re: The recent debate over Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s economic legacy – in Danish and more detailed here – please allow me to draw you attention to a blog post I wrote some months ago.

A short note on a passage in one of today’s editorials in Information:

Anders Fogh Rasmussen vil gå over i historien ikke alene som den statsminister, der misrøgtede økonomien og tvang Danmark ned på rangstigen over verdens rigeste lande, men også som den statsminister, der som den første kompromisløst tog økonomien som gidsel i sine bestræbelser på at bevare magten.

I would accept the argument that Fogh (and the Liberal Party under his leadership) was first and foremost office-seeking and that the economic policies of the naughties in many ways left Denmark in a worse position on the eve of the present economic crisis. In many ways, the economic policy is eerily reminiscent of the Swedish economic policy of the later 1980s which ended with a massive crisis lasting from 1990 to 1998. There were other reasons for the breakdown in Swedish economy but a lack of control of government expenses and a completely irresponsible handling of the financial markets did a lot of harm to Sweden and led to the lost decade of the 1990s. Unlike Fogh Rasmussen, Ingvar Carlsson had the decency to stay on board in order to try and sort out some of the mess himself before retiring from politics in late 1995.

But … while Information is right that Fogh Rasmussen’s predecessors Nyrup Rasmussen, Schlüter and even Anker Jørgensen did engage in policy reversals in order to stabilise the Danish economy, we should consider the case of Kulegravningsbanden, the all-party committee which in 1972 presented a comprehensive catalogue of possible cuts in public expenditures in order to stabilise an overheating Danish economy and reign in a public sector which had slid out of control, only to find its plans thwarted by prime minister Jens Otto Krag.

Sure, indications are that Krag was afraid that announcing cuts in public spending in the run-up to the 1972 EEC referendum would have turned public opinion against the EEC as the left-wing was running a “Welfare or Europe” campaign but the result stands: Danish economy overheated on a big scale, controlling public expenditure continued to be a major problem, the Progress Party gained momentum and, following the 1973 earthquake election, a succession of weak governments spent the rest of the decade and a major part of the 1980s getting the massive economic imbalances under control.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen deserves his place in the Danish Economic Policy Hall of Shame (especially as he should have known about the Swedish experiences) but he is not alone.

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.