NATO is having trouble agreeing on a new boss. Normally, this wouldn't worry me much, as I am by tradition and inclination very sceptical about the said organisation (while currently wondering about what the North Atlantic alliance is doing in the Hindu Kush). What I do find questionable are the grounds for the disagreement.
NATO has 28 heads of government. 27 of them want the Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen to be the new chief of the alliance, one doesn't - Tayyip Erdogan, from Turkey. Ok, one might ask what Turkey is doing in the North Atlantic alliance but that's historical, dating back to the time when NATO meant less North Atlantic than Anti-Soviet. The worrying thing is the reasons Erdogan gives for vetoing Rasmussen. There are two; the first is the support given by Denmark to a dissident Kurdish radio station based in the Scandinavian country (and one may comment in passing that Turkey has been something less than a paragon in its treatment of the large Kurdish minority living within Turkish borders). The second is worse - Rasmussen is unacceptable to Erdogan because Denmark (under Rasmussen's premiership) first allowed the publication of Mohammed-caricatures in 2006 and then defended the publication under the basic right of freedom of expression. Erdogan is already something of a dangerous experiment in Turkey, being the first Turkish PM in 80 years to openly profess his Islamic faith and to stand for what he calls Islamic values. He's popular (and will most likely be relelected with his party at the next Turkish national poll) although this popularity may have as much to do with the fact that he doesn't belong to the established (and pretty corrupt) political elite which has seen itself of as the guardian of Attaturk's secularism for nearly a century as it does with his professed Islamic identity - although Turkey (outside the major urban centres and the westernised Aegean and Mediterranean coastal tourist areas) is deeply conservative and religious. The Turkish army, which has a long putching tradition and sees itself as the guarantor of Attaturk's ideology, regards him with deep suspicion. That Erdogan rejects Rasmussen because the Dane supports the core secular value of freedom of expression is an indication of where many Muslims stand with regard to western values. The real issue for concern is that the Turkish PM is generally portrayed as a "moderate" Muslim. The question is whether Islam, as understood by the majority of its adherents, is compatable with a secular, pluralistic view of society. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," is a phrase mistakenly attributed to Voltaire, but expresses nonetheless a concept central to any open society. Is Islam (or, indeed, Christianity) capable of affirming this position? Francis On 3 Apr., 12:02, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 Apr., 03:30, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Simply, there is only so much room on a life boat and then some but > > sooner or later some must be left to drown or the whole boat will go > > under. > > I have problems with the lifeboat analogy. I don't like the idea of > living in a Fortress Europe (or Fortress America for you transatlantic > cousins). I believe it would be better and more profitable for all > concerned to work on giving people who, overwhelmingly motivated by > poverty and lack of opportunity, set out on the journey to the "golden > West", reasons to stay at home. This, of course, would entail those of > us in the rich countries restructuring the way we look at - and act in > - the world. > > At the same time, I do not believe it is unreasonable to require from > those who want to immigrate into our societies a genuine commitment to > our fundamental values and a real intention to integrate - which does > not mean giving up one's own identity. I see a problem here with many > forms and interpretations of Islam, where the requirements of a > divinely-given law (Sharia) do not allow for the acceptance of a > secular, pluralistic societal order. The challenge is for sincere, > moderate Islamic thinkers to develop Islamic viewpoints which > positively embrace the secular, pluralist vision of society. > > I would also suggest that the same arguments would also apply fo many > (mostly fundamentalist) Christians. And we need to be more consistent > about our commitment to secularity. Obama's inauguration was bracketed > by prayers and blessing from two Christian clergymen - something > fundamentally incompatible with a secular society. And it is peculiar > that many western nations have major problems (correctly, in my view) > with young Muslim women attending school so swathed in clothing that > you can only see their eyes, while having no problems with Catholic > nuns and priests wearing religious dress as teachers. > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
