Category: News

Muslims ask Turkey to veto Rasmussen

ANKARA (Reuters) – Muslim countries have asked Turkey to veto Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen as the next NATO chief, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said.

The current NATO secretary general, Dutchman Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, steps down on July 31 and his successor is expected to be named at a NATO summit on April 3 and 4.

Erdogan said he talked to Rasmussen by telephone on Friday and told him the Turkish people were upset by the Danish prime minister’s position during a row in 2006 over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad printed in a Danish newspaper.

Rasmussen refused to apologise for the cartoons, which sparked riots and attacks on Danish embassies in several Muslim states. Some Western governments defended the publication of the cartoons in the name of freedom of expression.

“A very serious reaction emerged in countries with Muslim populations during the cartoon crisis,” Erdogan told NTV broadcaster late on Friday.

Of Rasmussen’s appointment, he said “now these countries have started to call us and tell us not to allow it.”

Erdogan, who is leader of the Islamist-rooted AK Party, did not say directly he would veto Rasmussen as NATO party chief, an appointment made by consensus of NATO members.

But he said, “I am also a political party leader and I certainly should not contradict with my party’s principles. I told him he can appreciate what that means.”

He also said Turkey was upset Denmark had allowed a pro-Kurdish militant television station to broadcast from Denmark.

Turkey is concerned that at a time when NATO faces rising demands in Afghanistan, a secretary general with such an approach could affect the alliance’s relationship with the Muslim world.

Source: in.reuters.com, Mar 28, 2009

March 29, 2009
A New World Order

An end of hubris

Nov 19th 2008
From The World in 2009 print edition

America will be less powerful, but still the essential nation in creating a new world order, argues Henry Kissinger, a former secretary of state and founder of Kissinger Associates

Reuters

The most significant event of 2009 will be the transformation of the Washington consensus that market principles trumped national boundaries. The WTO, the IMF and the World Bank defended that system globally. Periodic financial crises were interpreted not as warning signals of what could befall the industrial nations but as aberrations of the developing world to be remedied by domestic stringency—a policy which the advanced countries were not, in the event, prepared to apply to themselves.

The absence of restraint encouraged a speculation whose growing sophistication matched its mounting lack of transparency. An unparalleled period of growth followed, but also the delusion that an economic system could sustain itself via debt indefinitely. In reality, a country could live in such a profligate manner only so long as the rest of the world retained confidence in its economic prescriptions. That period has now ended.

Any economic system, but especially a market economy, produces winners and losers. If the gap between them becomes too great, the losers will organise themselves politically and seek to recast the existing system—within nations and between them. This will be a major theme of 2009.

America’s unique military and political power produced a comparable psychological distortion. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union tempted the United States to proclaim universal political goals in a world of seeming unipolarity—but objectives were defined by slogans rather than strategic feasibility.

Now that the clay feet of the economic system have been exposed, the gap between a global system for economics and the global political system based on the state must be addressed as a dominant task in 2009. The economy must be put on a sound footing, entitlement programmes reviewed and the national dependence on debt overcome. Hopefully, in the process, past lessons of excessive state control will not be forgotten.

The debate will be over priorities, transcending the longstanding debate between idealism and realism. Economic constraints will oblige America to define its global objectives in terms of a mature concept of the national interest. Of course, a country that has always prided itself on its exceptionalism will not abandon the moral convictions by which it defined its greatness. But America needs to learn to discipline itself into a strategy of gradualism that seeks greatness in the accumulation of the attainable. By the same token, our allies must be prepared to face the necessary rather than confining foreign policy to so-called soft power.

Every major country will be driven by the constraints of the fiscal crisis to re-examine its relationship to America. All—and especially those holding American debt—will be assessing the decisions that brought them to this point. As America narrows its horizons, what is a plausible security system and aimed at what threats? What is the future of capitalism? How, in such circumstances, does the world deal with global challenges, such as nuclear proliferation or climate change?

America will remain the most powerful country, but will not retain the position of self-proclaimed tutor. As it learns the limits of hegemony, it should define implementing consultation beyond largely American conceptions. The G8 will need a new role to embrace China, India, Brazil and perhaps South Africa.

The immediate challenge

In Iraq, if the surge strategy holds, there must be a diplomatic conference in 2009 to establish principles of non-intervention and define the country’s international responsibilities.

The dilatory diplomacy towards Iran must be brought to a focus. The time available to forestall an Iranian nuclear programme is shrinking and American involvement is essential in defining what we and our allies are prepared to seek and concede and, above all, the penalty to invoke if negotiations reach a stalemate. Failing that, we will have opted to live in a world of an accelerating nuclear arms race and altered parameters of security.

In 2009 the realities of Afghanistan will impose themselves. No outside power has ever prevailed by establishing central rule, as Britain learnt in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th. The collection of nearly autonomous provinces which define Afghanistan coalesce in opposition to outside attempts to impose central rule. Decentralisation of the current effort is essential.

All this requires a new dialogue between America and the rest of the world. Other countries, while asserting their growing roles, are likely to conclude that a less powerful America still remains indispensable. America will have to learn that world order depends on a structure that participants support because they helped bring it about. If progress is made on these enterprises, 2009 will mark the beginning of a new world order.

Source: www.economist.com, Nov 19th 2008

“New World Order” transmutes into “Age of Compatible Interest”

March 29, 2009
Number of Bulgarians Traveling Abroad Shows Steady Decline

The number of trips made by Bulgarians abroad has been reduced by 25% in the course of one year.

The data was released by the National Statistics Institute.

The number of trips abroad in February 2009 is one fourth less than those in February of 2008 with a reduction for all countries for which data is collected.

The most significant decrease is registered for Israel – 62% down, followed by Slovenia (60%), Denmark (59%), Norway (58%), Finland (56%), Sweden (54%) and others.

Only trips to Turkey register an increase of 10%.

The number of trips abroad is steadily declining for the fourth consecutive month and from November 2008 to February 2009, there is a reduction of 66,000 trips.

Half of the Bulgarian trips abroad are business ones.

In comparison, most of the foreigners’ trips to Bulgaria are for vacation purposes (37%). In February there is a decrease of foreign trips to Bulgaria for all countries for which data is collected, compared with February of last year.

The most significant reduction is for trips of Hungarians (36%), followed by the Swedish and the Slovenians (34%) among others.

From European countries, non-members of the European Union, the Serbs register the biggest reduction of trips to Bulgaria (31%), followed by the Norwegians and the Russians (19%).

The only increase is Canada – 6% more trips compared to February 2008.

In 2008, Bulgarians have made a total of 5,7 M trips abroad, which is nearly 30% more then in 2007.

www.novinite.com 28 March 2009

March 28, 2009
Why the Left Promotes Totalitarian Islam

By Andrew G. Bostom
AndrewBostom.org | Monday, March 30, 2009

In a recent blog, I described how a courageous modern “traditional liberal” politician, Geert Wilders, aptly warns of the dangers posed by the ancient, but living totalitarianism of Islam, an entirely unreformed, and unrepentant religio-political system.

Why does the Left-from the more vociferous, to the (outwardly) sober-openly embrace, or rationalize, or at very best ignore and fail to condemn-the totalitarian scourge of contemporary jihadism, and all its accompanying “sacralized” Islamic ugliness: genocidal hatred of non-Muslims, Muslim “apostate” freethinkers, and women?

Almost immediately after Bolshevism emerged as an important political ideology, with real power, Bertrand Russell understood its similarity to Islam. He made the following comparison between Islam and Bolshevism in his 1920, “Theory and Practice of Bolshevism“:

Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam.

Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike the early successors of Muhammad.

Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of the world.

Three decades later, sociologist Jules Monnerot’s “Sociology and Psychology of Communism” (first published in French in 1949) opened with a chapter describing Communism as, “The Twentieth-century Islam.” Monnerot noted that like its religious antecedent, Islam, “Communism takes the field both as a secular religion and as a universal State.[emphasis in the original]” He concludes the comparison by observing,

This merging of religion and politics was a major characteristic of the Islamic world in its victorious period. It allowed the head of a State to operate beyond his own frontiers in the capacity of commander of the faithful (Amir-al-muminin); and in this way a Caliph was able to count upon docile instruments, or captive souls, wherever there were men who recognized his authority. The territorial frontiers which seemed to remove some of his subjects from his jurisdiction were nothing more than material obstacles; armed force might compel him to feign respect for the frontier, but propaganda and subterranean warfare could continue no less actively beyond it.

Religions of this kind acknowledge no frontiers. Soviet Russia is merely the geographical center from which communist influence radiates; it is an ‘Islam’ on the march, and it regards its frontiers at any given moment…[I]t is not the first empire in which the temporal and public power goes hand in hand with a shadowy power which works outside its imperial frontiers to undermine the social structure of neighboring States. The Islamic East affords several examples of a like duality and duplicity. The Egyptian Fatimids, and later the Persian Safavids, were the animators from the heart of their own States, of an active and organizing legend, an historical myth, calculated to make fanatics and obtain their total devotion, designed to create in neighboring States an underworld of ruthless gangsters. The eponymous ancestor of the Safavids was a saint from whom they magically derived the religious authority in whose name they operated. They were Shi’is of Arabian origin, and the militant order they founded was dedicated to propaganda and ‘nucleation’ throughout the whole of Persia and Asia Minor. It recruited ‘militants’ and ‘adherents’ and ‘sympathizers’. These were the Sufis. As rulers their sympathies were recognized by other sovereigns in the same way that Stalin, head of the State, is recognized by other heads of States, and rightly, as the leader of world communism.

Jamie Glazov’s trenchant, timely analysis United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror, elucidates how the contemporary Left-self-professed torch-bearers of “humanitarianism”-is so afflicted with moral and intellectual idiocy that it promotes, via activism, or apologetics-the genocidal aspirations of totalitarian Islam.

Glazov reminds us of Eric Hoffer’s seminal observations from “The True Believer,” contrasting those persons who possess “…a sense of fulfillment [and] think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is…,” with “…the frustrated [who] favor radical change.” Unfortunately, as Hoffer noted, the true believer’s desire for “radical change” is characteristically founded upon the nihilistic craving to “…be rid of an unwanted self…,” creating destructive mass movements which “…satisfy the passion for self-renunciation.”

Hoffer’s paradigm is deftly expanded upon by Glazov to explain the contemporary phenomenon of Leftist support for jihadists and jihadism:

In rejecting his own society, the believer spurns the values of democracy and individual freedom, which are anathema to him, since he has miserably failed to cope with both the challenges they pose and the possibilities they offer. Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about how his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole.

…As history tragically recorded, this “holy cause” follows a road that leads not to an earthly paradise, but rather to an earthly hell in all of its manifestations. The political faith rejects the basic reality of the human condition-that human beings are flawed and driven by self-interest-and rests on the erroneous assumption that humanity is malleable and can be shaped into a more perfect form.

…[T]he new generation of believers found their own idols in the terror war. The romance with Islamism is just a logical continuation of the long leftist tradition of worshipping America’s foes.

An added ingredient in this equation is the Left’s sacred cow of multiculturalism. The believer cannot accept the truth about Islamism or much of Islam, because he would then have to concede that not all cultures are equal, and that some cultures (e.g., America’s, with its striving for equality) are superior to others (e.g., Islam’s structure of gender apartheid). For the believer to retain his sense of purpose and to avoid the collapse of his identity and community, such thoughts must be suppressed at all cost. Because he seeks to nurture his self-identification as a victim and to lose himself inside a totalitarian collective whole, he must deny the truth about the object of his worship, as believers of previous generations denied the truth about Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and other totalitarian societies.

Because of these factors, the believer clings to a rigid Marxist view of the terror war, no matter how much empirical evidence proves that Islamist violence has absolutely nothing to do with economic inequality, class oppression, or Western exploitation. This is why, when Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi justify their terror with references to the Koran, and when Zacarias Moussaoui casually explains in court that he was simply following the Koran’s directive that Muslims must make Islam the world’s superpower, the believer always turns a deaf ear.

This is a long tradition of the Left: progressives have always assumed that they understand the world much better than the people for whom they purport to speak. In terms of the terror war, there exists an obvious and profound racism in the believer’s disposition, since the implication is that Muslims and Arabs are not bright enough to understand their own circumstances, and therefore their explanations of their own actions cannot be taken seriously.

Thus while bin Laden, Zarqawi, and Moussaoui may insist that the holy jihad is motivated by the desire to spread sharia throughout the world, to erase individual freedom, and to kill, convert, or subjugate infidels, the Western leftists is constrained to rationalize that they are saying such things only because they have been hurt by capitalism and Western imperialism. As David Horowitz points out, the leftist holds the Marxist perspective that religion is nothing more than a thought structure rooted in suffering under capitalism. Once the oppression stops, the believer assumes, the Islamist conceptions of Allah and jihad (which the believer privately considers ridiculous but would never dare say so in public) will simply disappear. Believers, therefore, inevitably deny the Islamic dimension that the terrorists themselves insist is their impetus for terror.

Unlike any other book, Jamie Glazov’s remarkably lucid, succinct analysis explains the odious alliance between resurgent totalitarian Islam, and a large swath of the contemporary Left.

Reviews:

Phyllis Chesler
Ron Radosh
Alyssa Lappen
Kathy Shaidle
WorldNetDaily.com
Cheryl Malandrinos
Ben Furman

Andrew G. Bostom is a frequent contributor to Frontpage Magazine.com, and the author of The Legacy of Jihad, and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.

March 27, 2009
Why Turkey belongs to the EU

Sigurd Neubauer

Friday 27 March 2009 – 07:30

With its geographical location, at the crossroads of an East-West and North-South axis, Turkey has played a dominating geopolitical role from the days of the Ottoman Empire to the present. In recognition of Turkey’s strategic position, President Harry S. Truman was quick to incorporate Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As the alliance is celebrating its 60th anniversary, Turkey is again at a crossroad. This time, the choice facing the Turkish Republic is whether Ankara should continue its path towards becoming a full fledged member of the European Union, or if Turkey should adopt a “neo Ottoman” foreign policy brokering conflicts between Israel and Syria and between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Beyond its broad foreign policy implications, Turkey is also facing a significant internal identity crisis where traditional urban pro-Western elite are being challenged by a new and emerging conservative bourgeoisie originating from the Anatolian heartland. At the center of this power struggle, is the current ruling Islamic Development Party (AKP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vis-à-vis the Turkish military establishment.

Turkey’s powerful generals have long seen themselves as the “guardians” of secularism as they adhere to the principals of “Kemalism,” laid out by the Republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). “Ataturk,” or “father Turk,” as his people called him, emerged on the political stage during the vanishing days of the Ottoman Empire. During these turbulent times, as pockets of Turkish populated settlements were threatened by increasing nationalism in the various regions of the empire, the young and ambitious army officer, Mustafa Kemal, was to become one of the most notable military leaders and statesmen of his generation.

Transition from Empire to Republic

From a small principality on the frontiers of the Islamic world at the turn of the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire became the most powerful state in the Islamic world stretching from central Europe to the Indian Ocean under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Following the long wars of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire declined as a world power in favor of the European mercantile powers. By the mid 18th century, what was left of the once mighty empire became known as the “sick man of Europe.” Despite countless reforms of the civil and bureaucratic structure, Ottoman political life continued under European tutelage.

Recognizing Turkey’s state of decay, Ataturk envisioned a strong, independent, and secular republic. According to noted Ataturk biographer, Lord Kinross: “Ataturk differed from the dictators of his age in two significant respects: his foreign policy was not based on expansion but on retraction of frontiers; his home policy on the foundation of a political system that could survive his own time.” Some of the republic’s early reforms were instituting a constitutional parliamentary system in 1923, followed by the introduction of the Swiss Civil Code in 1926. From a legal perspective, the Swiss Civil Code replacing traditional Sharia laws was an important step in the direction of westernization of personal, family, and inheritance laws. Other significant changes promoted by the Kemalists were adopting the Latin alphabet, western numerals, weights and measures, and gender equality.

Military and Democracy

The political system during the early Kemalist era remained a one party state, where no legal opposition was active until after World War II. Turkey has since come a long way in its democratization effort, despite brief military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980. Each time, the generals provided important exit guarantees that enhanced the military’s position, yet civilian control of the Republic has prevailed, as Turkey has become a competitive multiparty system.

With the reelection of the AKP in 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has secured his base as he openly challenges Turkey’s ancient regime, on a verity of issues from the headscarf ban to, as the only NATO ally, inviting Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Istanbul. The notion that “Turkey has to follow an integrated foreign policy and cannot have priority with the EU at the expense of its relations with the Middle East—as advocated by senior AKP officials—is a clear break with Kemalist foreign policy. Yet at this critical juncture, it is important for Europe to fully embrace Turkey. Because of its strategic location and economic ties to continental Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region, Turkey can fully complement the EU on a variety of issues from trade to security. In particular, Turkey can provide the European markets access to rich energy resources from the Middle East and Eurasia.

The battle for Eurasia

On the other hand, the Turkish government has shown increasing frustration, not only with U.S. policies towards the Middle East but also with the EU’s refusal to seriously consider its bid. Should Europe fail to embrace Turkey, this could be a fatal push of Turkey into the Russian orbit. Despite historical mistrust, Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey’s largest trading partner. By taking advantage of cooling relations between Ankara and Washington, Moscow is determined to expand its sphere of influence over the black sea region and Eurasia. Through an aggressive trade and investment policy, Russia skillfully outmaneuvered the United States by closing its airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

In the great powers struggle for influence, Turkey is an indispensable piece, too precious for the West to lose. Instead of remaining a “Christian Club,” the European Union should overcome its historical fear of “the Turks” and recognize that as a NATO member, Turkey will prioritize its ties with the United States and the West; as an EU member, Turkey will continue to cherish democracy, liberalism, and secularism. Europe turning its back on Turkey could be the nail in the coffin for an occidental oriented foreign policy and a secular national identity.

Source: The Diplomatic Courier (USA), 25-03-2009

March 27, 2009
“Terrorism Supporter” to be the Secretary General of NATO?

By Sedat LACINER

NATO has started to take on new roles, especially after the Cold War period, among which combating international terrorism is its first priority. The expansion of NATO’s operation area from the former Yugoslavia to Afghanistan is also a new development NATO is operating among religiously and ethnically diverse populations from numerous regions. Hence, the Organization’s operation locations ”at an equal distance from all religions and cultures” is of the utmost importance in accomplishing its mission. NATO is currently preparing to welcome its new secretary general, and Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in the lead, among the other strong candidates, in consideration for this post.

The US, Germany, and other significant NATO members have already asserted their support for Rasmussen. Moreover, Denmark has been conducting lobbying campaigns in support of its prime minister. Yet, since Rasmussen has an unfavorable record in combating terrorism and in conducting dialogue between civilizations, he is the worst candidate for the NATO or any organization of this kind:

* Copenhagen Is Broadcasting “Terrorist TV’

First, Rasmussen tolerated the PKK’s (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) activities in Denmark, and gave permission to the terrorist organization launching a television channel in Copenhagen: Roj TV, perceived as a culture channel by the Danish authorities, which enhances the so-called suppressed Kurds’ language and culture. However, to ignore the close relations between Roj TV and the PKK, one should be blind or malicious.

The TV channel repeatedly broadcasts PKK terrorists to the screen. Moreover, most of these terrorists are well known some are leaders of the Organization or even suspects on Interpol’s wanted list.

Moreover, the TV channel calls Kurdish people to perform acts of violence and terrorism against Turkey every day. Despite the fact that inciting violence is banned by the EU and Danish law as well, Denmark did not take any measures to discourage this persistent malice.

Turkey has warned Denmark on the matter numerous times. Not only Turkey, but also the United States (US) has pointed to dubious relations between Roj TV and the PKK and called for the channel to be shut down. Yet the Rasmussen Government did not take these warnings seriously, only postponing the solution by saying, “The police are investigating the issue,” or “our judges are going to focus on the matter.”

The terrorist relations between Roj TV and the PKK were obvious and the Danish government did not need any clues to figure out this connection. MED TV, the first channel established by the PKK, was banned by the British television authority ITC in 1999. The terrorist organization then moved its TV channel to France, under the name “MEDYA TV.” However, the France did not welcome the channel either, and it was closed down by the court after a short period of broadcasting.

The PKK moved to Denmark after the UK and France and found a government willing to help its cause. While Roj TV was broadcasting from Denmark, it was banned in Germany due to its terrorist roots. The PKK’s reaction to Germany’s stance was to kidnap German mountain climbers in Turkey. However, Germany did not yield to the PKK’s blackmailing and insisted on its decision on banning the TV channel. Indeed, the PKK is labeled in Danish law as a “terrorist organization” as it was by the US, the EU, the UK, Germany, and Turkey. Yet, Rasmussen continues to protect the terrorist organization’s activities by tolerating them. Thus, the PKK and its branches have freely carried out their activities in Denmark as if it was a civil society organization.

Now, the prime minister of this government, who has turned a blind eye towards terrorism, and is even seen as a supporter of terrorism, is preparing to be the head of NATO which regards combating terrorism as one of its primary missions. If Rasmussen becomes the Secretary General of NATO, this could possibly affect numerous NATO policies, especially those related to combating terrorism. Moreover, this could lead many countries including but not limited to Turkey, to question their confidence in the Organization’s policies.

* Cartoon Crisis

Rasmussen’s stance during the “Cartoon Crisis” is another fact which makes him a weird figure for the Secretary General of NATO.

Just after the release of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten newspaper on September 30th, which picture Muslims and their prophet as terrorists, Turkey warned Denmark to be aware of the incoming danger. Ambassadors of ten Muslim countries pioneered by former Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to Denmark sent a signed petition to the Prime Minister Rasmussen to protest the events. The ambassadors asked for a meeting with Rasmussen to evaluate the crisis and call for the peace atmosphere. Turkey aimed to bring the representatives of the Muslim countries in Copenhagen and the Denmark Government together during that crisis. However, Rasmussen did not appraise Turkey’s good will and his government implied that they did not need Turkey’s mediation on the issue. Rasmussen rejected the meeting request rudely. The caricature crisis spread to all Muslim countries as a result, and more radicals like Iran became dominant in anti-Denmark campaigns gradually, yet decisively. Whilst Denmark’s interests started to be damaged from these campaigns, Rasmussen declared that he personally condemned the caricatures, yet, he continued to evaluate the issue within the context of freedom of speech. His management of crisis was not only unsuccessful but also was narrow sided. Rasmussen ignored dialog and underestimated Turkey and its soft power. Today, for many Muslims, Denmark is a country which insulted their Prophet.

Is not the Rasmussen’s taking post going to disrupt NATO’s operations in Afghanistan while the perception toward Denmark is highly problematic among the Muslim countries?

* Turkey’s EU Membership

Rasmussen’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership on the ground that Turkey has a different cultural-religious background is the third reason which damages Rasmussen’s image in the eyes of Turkey and Muslim countries. For Rasmussen, who seems as if he does not make religion based politics, Turkey does not have a place in the EU.

Rasmussen had a significant role in Denmark’s opposition to Turkey’s EU membership as contrary to the stance of other countries in the Northern Europe. The Prime Minister also chose to support Turkey’s opponents whenever Turkey had a disagreement with other countries. His behavior towards Turkey was scorning and perception of Turkey for Rasmussen was “an Eastern country waiting at the EU’s door.” Resembling to Europe’s fanatical rightist politicians, Rasmussen became a problematic figure who discourages Turkey on the way to the EU membership.

Since he has been opposing Turkey’s EU membership as the first Muslim country to be in the EU, it is not hard to guess to what extent Rasmussen would damage the relations between the NATO and other Muslim countries.

***

Indeed, it is like a bad joke

While we were happy for getting rid of the Bush administration, Danish version of Bush is preparing to be the head of NATO during the Obama presidency.

slaciner@gmail.com

Sedat LACINER: BA (Ankara), MA (Sheffield), PhD (King’s College, London University)

***
Translated by Dilek Aydemir, USAK
Language Edit by Kaitlin MacKenzie, USAK

Source: Journal of Turkish Weekly, 26 March 2009

March 27, 2009