He was not from some local, navel-gazing Danish paper: he represented what anybody with a basic knowledge of Denmark would expect to be the institution of common sense -- daily Politiken.
The issue was the infamous cartoon crisis. As the other participants, British and Spanish, Moroccan and Lebanese, French and German journalists were arguing against what they saw as a breach of responsible behavior, the Danish editor was in no mood to listen. The world did not understand that this was a life and death issue of freedom of expression, period. The Islamic world had a short fuse of tolerance, he argued, and only by challenges such as this would they "learn."
When I gave him the example of a landmark European Court of Human Rights decision on blasphemy by publicity (Otto Preminger Institute v. Austria), he was even less willing to listen than before. And the more the British editors felt their arguments were hitting a brick wall, the more violently they shook their heads in desperation.
The discussion led nowhere.
Then, it was my turn. Changing the subject, I gave the example of Roj TV, long regarded as the voice of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and which is based in Denmark, operating freely and broadcasting to the areas where Kurds live. I gave my Danish colleague examples from the content of the Roj TV menu, describing how it in many cases openly, in detail, incited violence. The issue was no longer a case of calling for civil disobedience, but stoning the police, using weapons as tools of the struggle, causing destruction and havoc. The more specific I became, the more impatient my Danish colleague turned out to be. You could see he felt that he had not attended the meeting in order to be lectured by other nationalities, and particularly not by a Turk, who to him did not and should not have any idea about the ethics in reporting terrorism.
He told us he was proud of the freedom of expression in his country and there was practically no problem.
Our Spanish colleagues, who had to deal with the issues of the Basque separatist movement (ETA) propaganda at home, shook their heads in despair.
The debate ended in a total impasse.
It is rather sad that most Danes locked themselves into arguments aimed at self praise and became hostages in their defensiveness. Had they paid attention to the world -- including Europe itself -- they would be shocked to see how low they rank in the efforts to build bridges between cultures and work for peace. They have cornered themselves, is the rather common perception of those engaged in activities aimed at intercultural dialogue.
In this context and at this particular juncture, it is astonishing that a Danish politician, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, with a bleak record of understanding what is going on in the world, particularly in the Islamic world, is so keen on being elected the secretary-general of NATO. Something is wrong with the intent, and if realized, it is certain something will be widely perceived as wrong with NATO itself.
As my colleague, Stephen Kinzer, only recently pointed out, "Rasmussen, as NATO seems to have forgotten, was Denmark's leader when a Copenhagen newspaper published cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in ways that outraged Muslims around the world." When ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries asked to meet him to discuss ways of calming the anger that was building in their homelands, he refused to receive them. Soon after Rasmussen's refusal, the violent protests that these ambassadors had feared broke out. Scores were killed in rioting. Danish embassies in several countries were attacked and burned. "This choice would not be simply tone-deaf. It would do more to alienate Muslims from NATO than almost any other step the alliance could take. What can NATO be thinking? Proceeding with this appointment would suggest that it has lost all contact with reality. Rasmussen's qualifications are not the issue -- what matters is the way his appointment would be perceived in the world's most explosive region. … The Taliban and al-Qaeda will certainly portray Rasmussen's appointment as proof that NATO is guided above all by hatred of Islam. True or not, many people will believe it. "
Now, Rasmussen is at the flirting stage with Ankara, showing signs of banning Roj TV's pro-terror broadcasts. He should have done it a long time ago. He should also have apologized to the ambassadors of Islamic nations for patronizing them, by refusing to meet with them at the height of the crisis.
Turkey's reluctance to give the go-ahead to Rasmussen is entirely understandable. In its perhaps most critical watershed since the end of the Cold War, NATO needs a secretary-general who will take issues further ahead, not cause mental blocks because of what he symbolizes.
But it is not only an issue for Turkey. The other NATO members have to think twice, perhaps more. There are certainly more trustworthy candidates out there.
