The NATO summit in Strasbourg-Kehl witnessed an unexpected and certainly unnecessary crisis over the selection of the new Secretary General to replace Jaap de Hoop Schaffer in August. That was absolutely the last thing NATO needed. It is difficult to comprehend how NATO officials in Brussels and some member countries, Germany being the foremost, let this happen if they did not intentionally invent it. But the amazing thing was how it was resolved.

.

Denmark –and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, as was the case for NATO membership 60 years ago, is against Turkish membership in the European Union, Denmark has hosted Roj Tv –mouthpiece of PKK terrorist organization- for many years, and during the cartoon crisis of 2005, and since then, Mr Rasmussen has adopted an irresponsible, arrogant, and even provocative attitude and language. 

Turkey's ambassador in Denmark was one of the 11 ‘Muslim country’ diplomats to write to Rasmussen in 2005, just in the middle of the cartoon crisis, sharing their concerns and requesting some measures to be taken to ease the already rising tension. They also wanted to speak to him and asked for an appointment. Rasmussen declined to intervene saying freedom of the press was inviolable in Denmark –as if that was what was demanded by ambassadors, and also declined to meet them to discuss the matter.

.

The ambassadors' letter consisted of four main points: a criticism of the ‘discriminatory tendency’ and ‘casting aspersions on Islam as a religion’ they perceive in Denmark, a warning against the possible escalation of the crisis, an appeal to the Prime Minister to ‘take all those responsible to task’ under the law of the land, (and a request for a meeting with the Prime Minister).

.

When speaking to the Danish press, reducing the whole letter to an example of ignorance of ‘democratic society’ or even an ‘attack on freedom of speech’ (despite the ambassadors' repeated assurances to the contrary), Rasmussen misrepresented their intentions, distorting and omitting critical phrases and warnings in their letter, ignoring the ambassadors' explanations. In other words, he chose to address eleven ambassadors as if they simply did not understand what a democracy was. Neither in his written response nor in public did he make any reference to the rest of their complaints; he thus failed to comment, even once, upon any of the specific examples of the "very discriminatory tendency" given by the ambassadors.

.

Ambassadors’ frustration and disappointment was clearly reflected by –then- the ambassador of Turkey; "We aren't stupid, and we know the Prime Minister has no authority to intervene. Our intention was to ask him to improve the situation in this country, for what happened was very serious and very provocative. This is not about closing any newspapers, but about stating your points of view and call for a dialogue."

.

Finally, he did not hesitate to criticize 22 Danish former ambassadors for "bad timing" when they, in an open letter published in Danish press, criticized his handling of the case.

.

Roj TV is controlled by the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a terrorist organization as described so by both the European Union and the United States. Not surprisingly Roj TV maintains that it has no links with the PKK. 

.

During an official visit to Denmark in 2007, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan refused to take the stage for a scheduled joint press conference at Rasmussen's Office, because a Roj Tv reporter was present in the room. Rasmussen, talking to the press alone, said that he regretted that Turkish Prime Minister didn't attend the joint press conference on grounds that a ‘Kurdish television station’ was present, and that he had ‘no legal basis to exclude journalists from press conferences as long as they work within the law’. He chose to lecture Erdogan on freedom of press, again, in his absence, rather than trying to understand him –and Turkey. He said that; "Turkey has to realise that there are some very specific conditions that need to be fulfilled if Turkey wants to become an EU member one day."

These words may have sounded politically nice in a country where the majority is against Turkish membership, but not necessarily in Turkey.

,

It is not very often that a president says something just to be contradicted by the prime minister. President Gul said on March 27, in Brussels, that Turkey had nothing against Rasmussen and described him as ‘one of the most successful prime ministers’ in Europe. But Prime Minister Erdogan, in an interview the same day told that he had spoken to Rasmussen and informed him about (Turkish) opposition to his candidacy. Eventually Gul, who attended the summit, expressed his opposition to Rasmussen.

.

The reasons for the differing stances are not clear though. This situation whatever the reasons are, is an indication of very poor work on the part of both Turkish delegation in Brussels who –appearently- failed to convey the message home timely, and the Foreign Ministry who –seemingly- failed to brief both men adequately.

.

If President Gul’s earlier words were merely intended for getting the message through ‘diplomatically’, they were obviously misperceived.

.

Rasmussen officially announced his candidacy on March 27 and received tacit support from Western European countries and the United States. His pick came mainly as a surprise, since it, contrary to NATO tradition, was not subject to prior consultation. Norway's Foreign Minister unofficially declared that he was certain in the success of the ‘Denmark's nominee’ for the NATO Secretary General post and that Prime Minister Rasmussen was going to be NATO's future Secretary General. He was soon followed by Chancellor Merkel who openly endorsed Rasmussen, saying that he would be an “excellent choice” and a “strong secretary general” and pleaded for a rapid decision. Even Olli Rehn, EU commissioner hurriedly attempted to use EU membership stick for urging Turkey to change her stance by openly threatening ‘to review the whole membership process’.

.

Decisions in NATO are always taken by consensus and this requires prior consultation. Some members obviously thought that it would be difficult for Turkey to oppose Rasmussen and the summit would simply endorse him if the 25 other members backed him. (Which eventually occurred.) There are instances when a country may feel obliged to oppose the majority view, and what was faced with was such. Insistence on Mr. Rasmussen seemed like a no-go situation.

.

This was not a case like France’s return to the military structure. Turkey had (as expressed by the prime minister) legitimate concerns which should have been shared and appreciated (rather than being preempted) by other members at the first place. One wonders if anybody has ever asked him/herself, once endorsed as the NATO Secretary General, how Mr Rasmussen –a highly symbolic personality- could travel to Afghanistan where the Alliance has been stuck in an almost impossible struggle in which religion and religious rhetoric have been playing an increasingly critical role and where his past behavior already caused large scale disturbances. Nobody questions Mr Rasmussen’s credentials as a successful politician in his country, but he is viewed very differently in parts of the world where NATO has either already engaged or may engage in the near future. Predicting how such an endorsement would be perceived in the ‘Muslim’ world is not rocket science. Then, one cannot help asking the logic -and the intention, behind this move..

.

NATO is faced with significant problems requiring urgent attention; institutional problems, serious differences of opinion among its members, an updated Strategic Concept to replace the antiquated one dating from 1999, reorganization of command -and military, structure, relations with Russia, expansion, and above all Afghanistan. The Alliance did not and does not have the luxury of creating home-made crises to distract attention, consume energy, and wasting precious time. Today’s challenges require a bit more logical, and rational behavior than rushing gasoline to fire.

It is regretful that Turkey was put in a position of resisting this nomination. Yet, by objecting the selection and by not becoming, initially, a victim of the ‘group-think’ Turkey attempted to do a great service to NATO. It is telling that the Alliance wasted this opportunity for a second thought and chose to present Turkey with a fait-accompli and then an empty face-saving. 

.

The crisis was ‘resolved’ the same day as Mr Obama spoke to Gul and also Berlusconi (as he proudly revealed) to Erdogan, his best-man. Both Turkish leaders declared that their demands (not concerns) were satisfactorily met by NATO under the guarantorship of the American president. This reminded some informed observors of the 1981 Rogers’ guarantee, for negotiations over the Aegean, which proved false, or of the 1998 Martti Ahtisarri guarantee, for Turkish membership in the EU on an equal basis, which later proved no more than empty words.

.

Besides, now Turkey has contradicted her own views –very valid and real ones. The ‘gains’ claimed by Gül and Erdogan simply sound superficial. Any ‘apology’ for the caricatures is too late to be credible now. Sending of some Danish public prosecutors for ‘discussions’ on the status of the Roj Tv, after so many years, can only be called an offering of sugar coated pill, if anything. Cooperation with the Islamic Conference means nothing in practice. Turkish deputy for the SecGen is just legitimate, why should it be presented as a concession to Turkey? Similarly, Turkey is a major contributor to the military wing and to many operations, and it is only natural that Turkish officers also occupy high posts, these posts are burdens not rewards.

.

In any case, none of the alleged ‘gains’ justifies this step back by Turkey since they do not address the main problem, ‘symbolism’ loaded in this appointment. And by this move, Turkey has confirmed the long-established conviction in NATO that ‘Turks can be pursuaded into anything’ provided that appropriate ‘tools’ are mobilized in the appropriate way. Turkey has damaged her own credibility by being forced into accepting a decision which she had declared ‘unacceptable’, and bowed to pressure from Mr. President, in a matter of hours. Turkey should have seen the typical NATO play seemingly designed to corner Turkey into accepting what others already decided among themselves.

.

Being flexible does not necessarily mean being inprincipled; it is called something else.. The issues involved here are much more important than a couple of high-level posts in Brussels or else where, or personal frienship gestures. Mr Rasmussen’s appointment, as a man who made himself –rightly or wrongly- a symbol of anti-Islamic sentiment, as perceived both in the West and in the East, will bring more harm to Turkey and to NATO than good. One should ask, for sake of what and to what end was this decision hurried while there was ample time for solving the issue in due course? The way this crisis was created, developed, handled, and resolved does not bode well for the future of NATO. Barack Obama, being active in achieving this result and being instrumental in putting pressure on Turkey –and reminding her real status in the Alliance- has scarred his -perhaps premature, image as an honest and fair broker. This will probably prove less than productive in Turkish-American relations, which looked promising for a short spell. As always deeds spoke louder than words.