Monday, 6 April 2009
The NATO summit in France and Germany for many reasons has been a fruitful meeting. The newcomers to the Organization, Albania and Croatia, the return of France to NATO military command, and the pledges of the member states to the Afghanistan mission could be the most important aspects of the summit. However, one issue, the appointment of a new Secretary General of NATO, sparked consecutive discussions and overpowered the meeting agenda. The election or more of a favored appointment of the Secretary General of NATO led to the emergence of deeper issues among some of the members.
In broad terms, NATO is, in short, for facilitation of peace; it is no longer a North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the most part; it has already broadened its area of interest as well as its operational territories. Starting from the September 11, 2001 attacks, NATO has diversified its mission, a so-called new strategy for new challenges led NATO to heavily engage in countering terrorism. Although this mission has embedded limitations, given the ultimate environment on which NATO has been established, NATO’s new strategy calls for more cooperative initiatives and operations in the area of counterterrorism. This being said, the summit witnessed long discussions about the new Secretary General, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen was proposed as the candidate of the General Secretariat; however, Turkey has been opposed to his candidacy, which was strongly expressed by the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdođan.
The Turkish Prime Minister’s initial reaction to the candidacy of Rasmussen as the Secretary General of NATO has grounds in several reasons. First of all, as it is obvious for the world community, the caricature crisis has created an enormous reaction in the Muslim community. While millions of people have protested the so-called exercise of freedom of expression, the then-Prime Minister of Denmark Rasmussen did almost nothing except distance himself from any plausible proposition of reconciliation between communities that were shattered by the insult of a few inconsiderate individuals in his country.
Another important source of resentment over Rasmussen has emanated from Rasmussen’s passive and almost submissive position for the terrorist organization’s position in Denmark. The PKK terrorist organization has been responsible for the loss of thousands of lives, most of whom were women and children, and has a TV network, named Roj, in Denmark. Numerous attempts by the Turkish government to close down Roj TV fell on the deaf ears of the Danish government. Listed as a terrorist organization in the EU as well as the US, the PKK terrorist organization had been able to actively broaden its propaganda capabilities, while the Danish government, and of course Prime Minister Rasmussen, rejected any demand for action against the notorious terrorist organization.
Rasmussen should be aware of the fact that unless he appreciates the criticality of the issues, which will be dealt with by NATO, there is no way for him to come up with solutions or at least propositions. If we consider NATO as, if we will, a crisis manager, then the General Secretary in the first place should have the ability or sense of understanding of the comprehensiveness of the issues.
Rasmussen’s appointment to the General Secretariat of NATO, in a way, has created a conundrum, for which Turkey has resisted to the point, until the U.S. President reassured Turkey about its concerns. The conundrum may still exist if Rasmussen continues his previous attitudes toward the cultural, social, and psychological attributes about the principal factors, which are related to terrorism. It is vital for a Secretary General to have the ability to not only manage a crisis, but also to foresee possible calamities.
Of course as a member of the EU, the Danish prime minister had the backing of the EU members, especially Germany. Turkey’s position, in a way, created a crisis at the summit. The German Prime Minister played the EU accession card against Turkey, and implied that Turkey’s position might have jeopardized Turkey’s membership to the EU, which was proven as an early statement and even irrelevant one. It was irrelevant because, as President Gul summarized, the matter under discussion was NATO, not the EU. Another remark from Olie Rehn echoed an approach exactly similar to Germany’s. The bizarre point about this approach is that Turkey, as being one of the most important members in NATO, is also important for the EU’s security. Not only does Turkey play an important role in diplomacy in the Middle East, it is also very successful in countering terrorism, especially terrorism abusing religion. Such an attitude from the EU will not help any party, including the EU leadership. At that point Obama’s ability to manage crisis has been tested, and it was a remarkable success for him to be able to work with the parties by conveying each other’s messages in a way that every party has benefited from the discussions.
There are other positive aspects of the summit in terms of crisis management. Not only did Turkey present its position about Rasmussen, it also succeeded in clearing the concerns by receiving Obama’s guarantee. Of course Turkey also succeeded in receiving key positions at the NATO leadership.
Given the new role that NATO has been playing in terms of counterterrorism, freedom of expression cannot be the only explanation for actions that may infuriate antagonism and hatred in the international arena. NATO may seem to be a security aspect of counterterrorism; however, the case in Afghanistan showed that the mission is not limited to military operations. On the contrary reconciliatory efforts, which should not be understood as nation building, are also very critical in successful counterterrorism efforts. Rasmussen should adopt new perspectives to minimize any possibility of so-called clashes of civilizations. He is expected to be the key player in the efforts toward “reconciliation of the civilizations.”
The Second Forum of the UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) is being held on 6-7 April 2009 in Istanbul.
The Alliance of Civilizations seeks to address tensions across cultural divides that threaten to inflame existing political conflicts or trigger new ones. Through preventive diplomacy initiatives, it works at grassroots level, promoting education, youth, media and migration projects aimed at building trust and respect among diverse communities[1].
Such a platform can be utilized by the newly appointed Secretary General, who should take advantage of the opportunity. One thing is very important though: Rasmussen’s performance will not undo the damage that has been made, but a good, well-thought, well-delivered message may be a nice U-turn for him and naturally for Denmark as well. Of course we will see whether the Danish government will do anything concrete about Roj TV and the PKK’s activities in Denmark. It is a matter of time before any optimistic signs of improvement can be seen on the Danish side in terms of them moving forward and acting, but it is also a question of whether they are sincere about it.
Suleyman Ozeren
06 April 2009
http://www.aocistanbul.org/background.en.mfa
Afghanistan – Pakistan Turmoil: The US Misconception of the Region? 
