Jacob Christensen

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.

Generally, political scientists are not in the prediction business, but as the Dansk Politik blog has started the Foghometer (as I prefer to call it), here is the link.

And as a commenter noted: If Fogh resigns in favour of Løkke, Denmark will have had a string of three Prime Minister Rasmussens – Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

Back in 1993, I found it slightly hilarious that Poul (Schlüter) was followed by Poul (Nyrup Rasmussen). And then we shouldn’t forget the 2x Hans Hansen (Hans Hedtoft Hansen and Hans Christian Svane Hansen) heading the Danish government, even if Hedtoft had ditched Hansen by then.

Brad Reed:

The Bush administration can be described as a slapstick comedy with an unusually high body count: Picture the Three Stooges and the Keystone Cops duking it out with cruise missiles.

And this is just the 5th worst moment in the train-wreck presidency of George W Bush. The worst moment? Well, it involves the media. You are free to guess.

Two observations:

#1. Some months ago I read Jacob Weisberg’s The Bush Tragedy. Long-distance psychology, an approach which had all but disappeared since the 1970s, returns to tell us that underneath the facade, Bush43 is a cipher. The man has managed to build a life without any content whatsoever – not even his much-touted religious conversion reveals any substance. Either Weisberg has missed something completely, or we are stuck with one of the biggest riddles in modern history. How could Nobody be elected president of the US, twice?¹

#2. To many foreign leaders, cooperating with Bush has been lethal with the destruction of the Blair and Aznar premierships as the most conspicuous examples. Berlusconi is a tricky case as he managed to bounce back in the 2008 elections after being ousted in 2006, but one political leader has managed to stay very close to Bush and still survive politically: Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark. What does this tell us about Danish politics in general and Fogh Rasmussen in particular?

1. I know: Bush43 did lose the popular vote in 2000, but the question still stands. [↩]

Niels Krause-Kjær comments Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s recent speech about Danish foreign policy:

Fogh misforstår bevidst Vestager. Ikke bare lidt. Han voldtager hendes udsagn – ellers kan han ikke bruge det. At Margrethe Vestager stiller sig i en position, hvor hun bevidst kan misforstås, er så hendes fejl.

Or in English:

Fogh is deliberately misunderstanding Vestager. Not just a bit. He’s raping her statement – because he couldn’t use it otherwise. That Vestager has placed herself in a position where she can be deliberately misunderstood is a different matter.

Perhaps Fogh’s distortion of both the Social Liberal standpoint and Danish political history wasn’t that surprising but the crudeness of the argumentation is noteworthy. But then again, Fogh seems to make a Karl Rove-like petty envy the basis of his political project.

But let me, just in order to keep the low level of discourse, note that there were two parties who were spectacularly absent from the Danish resistance movement during WW2: The Social Liberals – motivated by a curious mix of realism and pacifism – and Fogh Rasmussen’s Liberals – motivated by greed as farmers were busy producing for the German market.

Seriously, there is more to be said about Margrethe Vestager’s complete lack of political timing and Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s non-fact based foreign policies.

Excerpt (in Danish) from Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s speech at the closing debate of the Folketing earlier today:

Men samtidig betyder traktaten, at de danske undtagelser fra EU-samarbejdet i endnu større grad vil hæmme Danmarks indflydelse og interesser. Undtagelserne er bevaret uændrede i Lissabontraktaten, men virkningen af undtagelserne bliver større med den nye traktat, end de er i dag. EU-samarbejdet har jo udviklet sig betydeligt, siden vi indførte undtagelserne i 1993. Med Lissabontraktaten vil der være store dele af samarbejdet, som vi ikke kan være med til.

Danmark vil være afskåret fra at deltage i EU’s indsats for at skabe og bevare fred. Vi kan ikke deltage i EU’s indsats for at skabe sikkerhed i verdens brændpunkter, som f.eks. Bosnien. Og Danmark vil være afskåret fra at deltage i det fælles politisamarbejde, herunder bekæmpelse af international terrorisme, bekæmpelse af grænseoverskridende kriminalitet, som f.eks. handel med kvinder og børnepornografi.

Derfor er undtagelserne i direkte modstrid med danske interesser. Tiden er løbet fra undtagelserne. De skader Danmark.

Regeringens holdning er meget klar: Danmark skal være fuldt og helt med i Europa. Vi deler grundlæggende værdier om frihed, menneskerettigheder og demokrati. Vi skal være med til at løse de fælles problemer. Det er i vores bedste interesse.

Derfor gjorde regeringen det allerede i november sidste år klart, at vi i denne valgperiode vil bede vælgerne om at tage stilling til EU-undtagelserne ved folkeafstemning.

Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier offentliggør sidst på måneden en grundig udredning om de danske undtagelser. På den måde vil alle få adgang til grundig og veldokumenteret information i god tid, inden vi skal træffe beslutning.

Regeringen vil bruge sommeren til at overveje redegørelsen fra Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier. I begyndelsen af august vil det så være naturligt at tage stilling til, hvornår og hvordan en afstemning bedst kan finde sted.

He explicitly mentioned Security and Defence Policy as well as Home and Judicial Affairs in his speech, but not the EMU. I haven’t found any reference to monetary policy in the speech – I will try and read the debate when it is available to see if the other parties will force AFR to make a statement on the issue. An announcement of the date(s) for referendum(s) will be made in early August.

A noted in an earlier post, Danish media have been buzzing with rumours about prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s future since last summer. In case you wonder, the media consensus is that Fogh wants to leave his post in favour of a position at the European Union, preferably as the first president of the European Council under the Lisbon Treaty.

I have nothing to add to all of this speculating but as a political scientist, I am of cause curious about how prime ministers get out of office and what they do afterwards.

If we look at Denmark post-1901 when parliamentary rule was introduced, the sad truth is that only two PMs have left office voluntarily: M.P. Friis in 1920 and Jens Otto Krag in 1972.¹ All other PMs have either died in office, lost elections or votes of no confidence or resigned in the face of parliamentary defeat. As a rule, Danish PMs like annoying relatives tend to overstay their visits.

The Swedish record is more mixed: Tage Erlander and Ingvar Carlsson resigned voluntarily. Olof Palme, on the other hand, was murdered, while Thorbjörn Fälldin, Carl Bildt and Göran Persson were voted out of office. It is not uncommon for Norwegian prime ministers to resign voluntarily and hand over responsibilities to a chosen successor: Tryggve Bratteli, Odvar Nordli and Gro Harlem Brundtland (1996) did so.

But what to PMs do after resigning? To give a perspective on Fogh’s possible future I looked at the biographies of the prime ministers of the Nordic countries since 1980 – my research is not comprehensive: To do a proper study, you will need to check the Blue Books published in the respective countries.

Since 1980, Finland has had seven prime ministers. Mauno Koivisto went on to become president, while Kalevi Sorsa and Paavo Lipponen stayed in national politics for some time. Harri Holkeri went into UN service at a secondary level, while Esko Aho after a sabbatical took up a post at the SITRA foundation.

Norway has also had seven PMs. Odvar Nordli and Kåre Willoch after short interludes became county governors while Jan P. Syse stayed in parliament. Dethroned Labour PM Thorbjørn Jagland also stayed in parliament while taking up a post in the Socialist International while Kjell Magne Bondevik is the leader of the Oslo Centre for Peace of Human Rights. Finally, Gro Harlem Brundtland went on to be director of the WHO.

In Sweden, Thorbjörn Fälldin went back to his farm – supplemented with boardroom-work in state-owned companies – while Ingvar Carlsson more or less vanished into thin air. Carl Bildt made a dual career as EU and later UN representative in the Balkans as well as going into business and doing consultancy work. Finally, Göran Persson has become a professional lobbyist.

Anker Jørgensen soldiered on as chairman of the Social Democrats before finally resigning from that position in 1987, while Poul Schlüter and Poul Nyrup Rasmussen were elevated to the European Parliament. Nyrup Rasmussen actually was deselected as chairman of the Social Democrats, but came back to make a second career as chairman of the Party of European Socialists.

So, where can we find a parallel? The best match to a President Fogh would probably be Gro Harlem Brundtland and I’m sure some readers will find this truly and utterly hilarious.

1. Friis is a special case as he was appointed as caretaker PM during the 1920 Easter crisis [↩]

This is the best laugh I’ve had since – well, last week’s episode of Californication. Danish media report a remarkable statement by the Danish PM in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt. Yes, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, there will be a referendum on the EMU, or in the words of the original interview:

Wird es in Dänemark Referenden zum EU-Vertrag und, ein zweites Mal, zum Euro geben?

Zum EU-Vertrag nicht. Wir haben uns für die Unterzeichnung entschieden, und ich hoffe, dass er bis Ostern ratifiziert sein wird. Zur anderen Frage: Wir haben drei Opt-Outs – zur Frage der militärischen Zusammenarbeit, zur polizeilichen Zusammenarbeit und zum Euro. Wir überlegen gerade, wie wir damit umgehen sollen. Soll es zu allen drei Fragen ein Referendum am gleichen Tag geben? Oder sollen wir die drei Fragen getrennt behandeln? In unserem neuen Regierungsprogramm steht, dass wir die drei Opt-Outs abschaffen wollen. Es geht nur noch um das Wann und Wie. Um es klar zu sagen: Es wird ein Referendum über die Einführung des Euro geben.

The funny bit? The interview was published on 8 February.

Update: Berlingske Tidende wants a piece of the action as well.

Just in case someone from the Danish commentariat ventures onto this site by accident:

Die Zeit discusses candidates for the position as President of the European Council. Prime suspects: Tony Blair (too U.S.-friendly and traditionally “great power”), Jean-Claude Juncker (too pragmatic).

Potential second-tier candidates: Bertie Ahern, Guy Verhofstadt or why not Wolfgang Schüssel.

And no: Anders Fogh Rasmussen is not mentioned.

There is one thing which the Danish commentariat can agree on: Anders Fogh Rasmussen wants to be the first President of the European Council. Or something like that. I won’t even bother to search for links because these stories pop up in Danish media once or twice per week and have been doing so for some time and a large part of your credibility as a political commentator in Denmark lies in the ability to look into the nearest camera and declare that “Anders Fogh Rasmussen wants to leave Danish politics in favour of an international top job before the next election” in a deep voice.

Be that as it may, the good citiziens of Europe are of a different opinion. According to the Financial Times

more than three-quarters of people surveyed in France, Italy and Spain believe the job must go to a high-profile figure who can represent the Union effectively – a view which was also supported by 50 per cent of Britons.

Being the Prime Minister of Denmark obviously does not meet that qualification although Mr. Fogh (should his wish be to become EU President) might take some solace from this:

Although the poll suggests there is a strong preference among people in western Europe for a high-profile candidate, there is no consensus on who the EU president should be.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Tony Blair, the former British premier, are the only two politicians who get a clear level of support in countries that are not their own.

I would still put my money on Jean-Claude Juncker, though. After all, Luxembourg is a member of the EMU.