//
you're reading...
Afghanistan War, Conservatives, France New Militarism, Libya, Military Analysis, NATO, Political Analysis, products, Psychological Analysis, security, US

Anders Fogh Rasmussen (& NATO): A Profile of a European Neo-Con


After yesterdays post, mentioning in passing Rasmussen, the present NATO Secretary-General, I thought I should extend the original argument that I started on that post, namely, Mr. Rasmussen is an European equivalent of US Neo-Conservatives, and should have never been ‘awarded’ the post of such a prestigious and reputable international institution, that is, NATO.

”In a comment to the media Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated as one of the reasons to support a military intervention, “Irak har masseødelæggelsesvåben. Det er ikke noget vi tror. Vi ved det. Irak har selv indrømmet, at det har haft sennepsgas, nervegas, miltbrand, men Saddam vil ikke afregne. Han vil ikke fortælle os, hvor og hvordan de våben er blevet destrueret. Det ved vi fra FN’s inspektører, så der er ingen tvivl i mit sind.”

(In English: “Iraq has WMDs. It is not something we think, it is something we know. Iraq has itself admitted that it has had mustard gas, nerve gas, anthrax, but Saddam won’t disclose. He won’t tell us where and how these weapons have been destroyed. We know this from the UN inspectors, so there is no doubt in my mind.“).

The Danish Defence Intelligence Service (FE) had produced a classified report stating that it had no absolute proof of WMDs in Iraq. Rasmussen had access to this report and used it in other parts of his decision making. Since the presence of WMDs in Iraq has now been refuted, Rasmussen has focused almost exclusively on the tyrannical nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. A former FE analyst, Major Frank Grevil, was sentenced to four months in prison for leaking the information to the press. Grevil argues that Rasmussen has either lied about or misunderstood the content of the secret reports in his presentations to the parliament. During Rasmussen’s administrations, Denmark has also deployed troops to Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kosovo. All three missions have only met minor political opposition. Rasmussen as a prime minister rejected insistent demands from the opposition that there should be investigations on getting Denmark involved in Iraq’‘.

The Script above comes from the Wikipedia, with direct sources of the material available as links, the point, to show the clear observable nature and psychological trait of an individual appointed to head such ”an internationalist” organisation as NATO.

In the Corporate World, such an individual, will not even have had a privilege of being included in the ”representative team” for an international role and representation. The question is, how did Europeans made such a bad choice of leadership role of NATO in Mr. Rasmussen, when in clarity his behaviour can be appreciated as that of Eurocentric, belligerence, right-wing approach to not just European (or Danish Affairs) but more so on the global relations?

It would take at least ten Rasmussen to see the death of NATO, as an organisation, however, at the moment, it is a start, as one Rasmussen, supported with the ”little wanna-be Napoleon”, Mr. Sarkozy, and his new ”grandeur le France” vision, and Britain, dwindling world & European status and role (trying to keep a foot in), and the unelected conservatives (I have, as many, here, a say about the Tories. Once in power, the first they do, is look for His Lordship Mars, God of War, to find them that ”little winnable war”, to unite and country, so they can easily win next elections; Tories, depend mostly in foreign affairs challenges as the way by which to win votes, as they lack policy creativity and innovation; traditionalists, eh!). Anyway, the point is, with these three in the helm of the organisation as NATO, and with US more preoccupied with internal economics, and other social issues, and rather more significant foreign policies, thus, ignoring the affairs and management of NATO; it does seem the ration of 1:10 Rasmussen to destroy NATO, has been a little bit shifted by margin of the ‘power ration’ of 5:10, with the effect of Libya, Afghanistan reputation of war crimes, and any other few ”problems”, we just might see the ”unstable organisation” suffering the same fate as that did Warsaw Pact, Collapse!

To Sum up, the key players of Nato, Mr. Rasmussen, France and Britain, and the isolated US, are about to destroy an important collective security organisation in the western sphere, how long, or when will this happen? is the question to be left to the dictates of events.

Advertisements

About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: