We are well aware of the fact that the left and the right in Europe view the world as a whole as well as our country quite differently from one another. For example, the European left sees no problem with Turkey becoming a member of the European Union. The right, however, is strongly opposed to this possibility. While the former leader of the British Labour Party, Tony Blair, represents the profile of the European left, German leader of the Christian Democrats Angela Merkel represents the right. It was thus interesting to note that these two very different newspapers adopted essentially the same stance with regards to Turkey's negative reaction to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's candidacy for secretary-general of NATO.
While reading the articles on this topic -- written from top to bottom in extremely rude and rough manners -- it is easy to discern just how beholden certain Western minds are (despite their appearances to the contrary) to some extreme pre-conceived ideas.
You would think, on reading these articles, that Rasmussen deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for his contributions to peace around the world. And that, by the same token, Turkey is doing everything in its power to block the path of this valuable man. You might also think that Mr. Rasmussen was not the main actor in preparing the groundwork for a clash between civilizations (along the lines of what Samuel Huntington imagined), but instead some sort of disciple of peace, a figure reminiscent of Gandhi or Nelson Mandela.
With all reasonable people scurrying to close the gap that has developed between the Islamic world and the Western world in the wake of events like Sept. 11 and the caricature crisis, how odd that there seems to be no problem with the idea of Rasmussen taking the helm of an organization such as NATO. And now, with Turkey -- the only NATO member with a majority Muslim population -- expressing its own reservations on this matter, suddenly we have a scandal.
Yes, to have Rasmussen at the head of NATO when the whole world is trying to find a solution to what is going on in Afghanistan and when US President Barack Obama is repeating his intent to put a priority on this subject seems to pose no problem for some people. But bringing up the fiasco represented by this choice, a fiasco that even a small child could see from afar, is somehow a disaster.
Just take a look at the mentality guiding the stances on this situation. These voices are essentially saying: "NATO, beyond being just a defense union, is at the same time aiming to be a union of values. NATO received an opportunity to show just how much it is such following Turkish Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan's reaction toward Rasmussen. NATO must take advantage of this opportunity. The subject here is no longer who will or will not be the next NATO secretary-general, but instead whether or not NATO is any more believable. If the Defense Pact allows Rasmussen to be blocked from becoming NATO secretary-general just because he is hated in Islamic countries, it means that NATO, from a moral stance, has dissolved."
You might be led to believe, from the tone of the above words, that instead of being the leader of one of NATO's most important nations, and the leader of a nation that has undertaken critical roles in Afghanistan, that Erdoğan works as a guard in some small, insignificant neighborhood somewhere. These words might also make you forget that Turkey, with its memberships in organizations such as NATO, the United Nations, the UN Security Council and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) -- not to mention being a co-leader of the Alliance of Civilizations initiative -- has the right to make its views clear.
What's more, unlike what these articles say, the truth is that this topic is not just related to Turkey's view on the caricature crisis. The Turkish public is well aware of Rasmussen's support for the broadcasts of Roj TV, a media outlet of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). The Turkish public likewise remembers that Prime Minister Erdoğan protested and ultimately canceled his appearance at a press conference during an official trip to Copenhagen in 2005 due to the presence of a Roj TV reporter in the press corps.
And of course, Turkey as a whole also recalls the words from Rasmussen captured by Danish television during the 2002 Copenhagen summit, when the Danish leader commented on "extending the period of time necessary to keep Turkey busy" on its attempt to gain accession to the EU.
So in the end, the above are more than enough reasons for Turkey to object to Rasmussen's heading the NATO organization. As for the whole caricature matter, it is really Turkey's own ethical reminder in regards to world peace in general. But for those who refuse to comprehend this basic truth, maybe Rasmussen should be made the secretary-general not of NATO, but of the United Nations. Yes, maybe that's what would finally lead the world to peace. As far as we are concerned though, there is absolutely no reason for Turkey to bow to the concerns of others on this front. Saying "no" to Rasmussen would be an important lesson for certain Western politicians and would be a significant gesture to humanity as a whole.
