Agora

Update: Welcome to the Volokh Conspiracy. Boy, do you know how to spike a graph.

 

Berlingske, February 26, 2006

The World According to Fogh

By Jesper Larsen

To Anders Fogh Rasmusen the last four weeks have been the greatest challenge in foreign politics during his tenure as Prime Minister. Even though the international crisis erupting from the Muhammed cartoons has yet to pass - while the opposition is calling for an investigation of the events - the Prime Minister has already drawn his own lessons from the affair.

The Prime Minister’s index finger is pointing animatedly at the B&O TV in the corner of the office.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen is reclining in the sofa, trying to take stock of events in the Muhammed cartoons crisis, especially the questions of principle that have been left behind in this crisis between the West and the Moslem World.

The question of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Of the global confusion, about the interplay of liberties and the position of faith in Denmark of tomorrow. The questions that are not bounded by petty rivalry and matters of protocol, or by the governemnt’s responsibility in the quite extraordinary international position Denmark has found itself in this past month.

The index finger is pointing at the TV.

"People die during violent demonstrations in Pakistan, and places rarely heard of. And with typical self-centered narcissicism, in Denmark it is interpreted as a matter of Danish immigration policy and Danish integration policy. Noone even knows about these things in the streets of Pakistan - to be frank, I think this kind of criticism is beyond the pale," says Anders Fogh Rasmussen of the domestic debate.

The Prime Minister makes a gesture of resignation. Anders Fogh Rasmussen is well-versed in the politics of one-liners, but during this crisis his sentences have been atypically long.

"What we are facing is a matter of grave principle, though not all of the reactions can be taken quite seriously. What we are facing - what is shown on TV daily is - to pick a good one, a demand from the Arab Street that I must punish Carsten Juste [ED: Editor of Jyllands-Posten] - the details vary, either decapitation or the gallows," the Prime Minister says and continues:

"The cartoonists are to be extradited and tried under Sharia. The worst possible threats have been issued against Danes and our embassies have been torched. The list goes on. That’s what we are facing daily. Do 12 cartoons justify that kind of reaction? I think that is rather doubtful. But what I have seen the Danish media, some of them at least, concentrate on lately are matters of detail - the correct translation for a line in a letter, questions of whether a meeting should have been accepted or not and the matter of whether the Committee on Foreign Affairs ought to have been informed a bit sooner - what I am saying is that those are pinpricks, if proven to be a problem, in comparison to what we are facing. Those facing us have no doubts about religious matters and other matters as well. But we are focusing on matters of whether we handle things by the protocol - matters, I should add, which aren’t about protocol at all, but about politics and principles."

Politics and principles are the things the Prime Minister keeps stressing and they are also the reason why the Prime Minister thinks that no investigation of the events are needed. He categorically denies that he or the government underestimated the dangers of the Muhammed-issue or failed in any other way.

"No, I would say not. I don’t consider myself infallible, no it’s not that, mistakes happen all the time." Says the Prime Minister "When I revisit events in my head and scrutinise the steps we’ve taken on this issue, I see no place where this administration could or should have acted differently. And regarding the matter of the proposed meeting with the ambassadors, I still think it was the right choice to not meet them."

The by now infamous meeting that was never held, was proposed last fall. The Prime Minister rejected out of hand the very notion of such a meeting, because there was nothing to discuss. The government will not interfere with the press.

What did you learn from this experience?

"We have been facing forces - I have called them uncontrollable, but apart from that they are forces we are not used to handle politically. This was very much orchestrated by religious forces. In our society, politics and religion are kept separate. In the kinds of societies we are dealing with, religion is what gives direction to all thoughts and to the societies as a whole. That has made this a task of special difficulty. The immediate lesson we have learned is that foreign politics is no longer only about government-level negotiations. We have had to try to communicate with the people of the Moslem countries because the governments of those countries no longer were in a position to exercise control. That proved to be a very demanding task, because their knowledge of how our society works is non-existant, making our explanations seem hollow. The obvious example is that the Arab Street doesn’t understand that a head of state doesn’t have the power to shut down a newspaper, because they are used to it being otherwise."

The Limits to Freedom of Speech

According to the Prime Minister, what Denmark has witnessed on the level of principles is a meeting of the Danish principles of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech with the principles in the Moslem World regarding religion.

"I would like to stress that Freedom of Speech stands second to none for me of all our liberties. I see it as the guarantor of all our other liberties. And I see Freedom of Speech - the right to speak truth to power - as the basic locomotive of all Western societies. It’s what makes progress possible, that norms aren’t accepted on face value. That’s why it is so essential to guard it. All our liberties are answerable to the courts, of course. I too think that there are limits to what one may lawfully say. For instance, I don’t think it’s right if you have the liberty to encourage violence and terror. And apart from that, we also have a restriction on racist or blasphemous speech, and if you feel that you’ve been so spoken to, you may take your complaint to a court of law. So it is a liberty that is limited by the courts - but - here’s the point - the limits are enforced by the courts, not the government. That’s a lesson we have to be mindful of."

But isn’t the lesson also that we should be more mindful of the last part - that there are limits. Looking at the messages we have received from other countries, many stress that one shouldn’t insult other religions?

"Yes, that is true, but that is a matter of degree. We haven’t been lacking in support from partners and allies, I would like to point out. The support has been clear and unaninmous for the government’s handling of this matter and for Freedom of Speech," the Prime Minister answers.

Writers have Failed

Following months of refusals to let the government take a position on the matter of the 12 cartoons, the end of January saw Anders Fogh Rasmussen express that he personally would not have made those cartoons. This happened following the the first mass demonstrations, burnings of the Danish flag and the torching of Danish embassies. The Prime Minister recalls his statement to the letter:

"Personally my respect for the religious feelings of others is so profound that I would never depict either the prophet Muhammed or Jesus or any other religious figure in a way offensive to others. It’s very important for me to lay out what I have said and especially what I have not said. What I have said is an expression of my personal opinion, my personal preference. But I wouldn’t want my personal preference to become the law of the land. I have not said that I want to forbid the 12 cartoonists or anybody else to draw whatever they like. And I have expressly not said that I want to prevent Jyllands-Posten or any other newspaper from printing it."

But that’s not how your statements has been interpreted. They’ve been interpreted as you distancing yourself from the cartoons.

"That’s right, but what I said was only that I wouldn’t draw those cartoons, and for that I have various personal reasons. But it is very important here to underline precisely what that statement covers, because some have apparently interpreted it as me saying that I would forbid others to do so. And that is precisely not what I meant, and that distinction is very, very important. Everybody in the debate says with great gravity that we must guard Freedom of Speech and that everybody has the right to print whatever they like. "But…" they then say - and that means that they don’t really mean that. That is where they lose their grip, in my opinion."

When you mention the debate, are you referring to anyone in particular?

"I am not out on a vendetta against anyone. But there have been some statements in this debate that indicated to me that they wanted to make a law of their preferences. That’s a dangerous thing to say."

Are you referring to politicians or to a part of the media?

"I don’t want to go there, because I think that would derail the debate about the principles of this matter," says the Prime Minister. "There is something much more basic, a thing that is very common in all of Western culture. It’s what I would call our ceaseless urge not only to criticise but to criticise ourselves. That may be healthy sometimes, I don’t deny that - that is also generative of progress, that we don’t just accept the way things are. But I think that during this crisis we have seen it erupt into what I would call a double standard from certain parts of the intellectual world. Let’s compare two cases. The Rushdie-case and the case of the 12 cartoons. It is crystal clear to me that the intellectual ‘climbers of the parnassus’ have defined a double standard. We have seen a lot of people jumping on one leg and then the other, unsure of which to choose. In the Rushdie-case which was very offensive to the Moslem world, there wasn’t any doubt. Everybody was saying that of course Rushdie should be allowed to write his book, of course he should be granted protection by the West, that’s what Free Speech is all about. But in this case another standard has been seen, where we have seen writers of, and associated with, the PEN society be completely bewildered. Writers and other people living off free speech have been a disappointment. And I think I know why - it’s because they are seeing it as something it is not, in a way that has completely blurred their vision. They don’t like the Danish People’s Party, they don’t like Jyllands-Posten and they don’t like this government. Possibly in that order. Due to a relation bordering on the hateful to those three factors, they can’t bring themselves to defend Freedom of Speech today. So there’s a double standard.

When you say ‘others’, are you referring to Politiken and Berlingske Tidende?

"I don’t think it serves any purpose to speak of that," says the Prime Minister, even if the editorials of Politiken on this issue brings to Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s mind "vestiges of April 1940", where "one ought to just lie down."

"I must say that I think that what we have seen has been a total lack of principle painted with a broad brush across the board - none mentioned, none forgotten. But it is something we saw from parts of the private sector to a large part of the cultural and media world."

Jyllands-Posten has felt that other media outlets have left them high and dry, especially Politiken and Berlingske Tidende. Do you think that other media outlets ought to have been more assertive of free speech?

"Being the Prime Minister does not entail that I get to edit the newspapers of this country. But I think it is safe to say that we have seen a situation that have seperated the sheep from the goats."

Which are the sheep and which the goats?

"Speaking only for myself, I have surveyed the field and I have seen sheep and I have seen goats. That’s what I have seen. But life must go on, so that’s that. Now that I’ve said it, I think some may feel that it is directed at them, others will be able to say that it isn’t. It’s out of my hands now."

You’ve previously criticised the politicians who cooperated with the Germans during WWII in harsh terms - has this case changed your view on whether one should judge others’ actions?

"No. And I think it’s a bit far fetched that some try to make that comparison - it’s two different situations, and I don’t think that this government has in any way compromised our principles."

But some compared you to Scavenius [ED: Danish PM and FM during WWII] when you distanced yourself from the cartoons?

"I categorically reject that. I only expressed my personal preference. I wouldn’t ever think of making that preference the law of the land. That’s an absolutely crucial difference. I have not been talking about whether it was right or wrong. Jyllands-Posten has stated that they apologize for any insult they have caused. I have said that I am sorry to hear that many Moslems see the cartoons as an insult to the prophet Muhammed. And I have further added that neither the government or the people of Denmark intend to insult Moslems or people of other faiths."

The Strength of the Danish Church

With Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press come Freedom of Religion and after the cartoons issue the Prime Minister warned against letting religion be central to the public debate.

"It’s clear that with our liberties comes also the respect for other people having other religious views. All the people of Denmark are free to exercise their religion in any way they wish. With that comes also that we must show respect for the religious views of the individual. But here there is another fine distinction to be made. In Denmark we usually differentiate quite clearly between religion and politics. We don’t make laws from the precepts of religions. We’ll respect the religious persuasion of the individual - the faith that is his. But that doesn’t mean that religious laws are above the laws of the Danish parliament. It might seem rather obvious to say that, but following the debate we’ve had, it has not seemed as obvious. It’s suddenly become an important principle we need to reaffirm."

But will that entail any direct action or is it just something it’s important to know?

"I think it’s important to know - and I would like to add something about which no law can be made, something that is my opinion and which I will say repeatedly: That religion for me is a matter between the individual and his god. And that there must be equal freedom to say that one has no faith. That is why I warn against letting religion take up too much of the public debate. It ought to be self-evident, but after what we’ve been through we must accept that it is something that needs pointing out. I’m concerned that if we let religion take up too much space, we will see the polity of Denmark, which is its strength, splinter. This is where some will ask whether we oughtn’t to separate the State from the Church…."

Wouldn’t that be a good way to promote what you’re talking about?

"No, it would be the worst of scenarios. What would happen if the Danish church is separated from the state, is that it would no longer be a church of the people - it would become more and more controlled by what I will call the High Church community. The church would become exclusive and the breadth of it would diminish. I have, over the years, become more and more convinced of the strength of the organisation of our established church. And that is that no one person has the authority to speak on behalf of the church. The Danish church is controlled by the laity and the priests in common - there is no arch bishop, no synod which is empowered ot speak on behalf of the church and that’s an immense advantage, because fundamentalism is kept confined. That’s what I am warning against, fundamentalism of all stripes."

Keep the Right Perspective

And what of the interplay between - and the clash of - Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. The coexistence of these, to use a long word, what are the terms for that?

"Coexistence must be based on mutual understanding. But I have seen a tendency for it to be based on the premises of whoever can scream the loudest and is most inclined to violence. It can’t be allowed that because some organise burnings of the flag and arson against embassies and threats against people and boycots of goods then it must be their premises that are the terms of coexistence. It must not be like that. Of course, we need to consider the religious feelings of the religious communities - but religious communities must also understand the basic principles our society is built on. And among those principles is a far-reaching Freedom of both Speech and Press. That must - after all - be the premise."

Has the basic view been skewed in favor of the religious communities?

"I think that’s very clear. If it bleeds, it leads and flag burnings and the burning of effigies and arson and violent protests in general are easier to are depict than the insubstantial values of Freedom of Speech and Press. There is also a tendency, out of fear or weariness, to just feel ‘let’s move on already’ and that the response then is ‘okay, you win’ and to just give in. But that will do noone any good. Peaceful coexistence must be the goal and the means."

How is that attained?

"Well, that can only be attained by accepting that Freedom of Speech means that everything can be scrutinised and is up for debate. I will, to take an example, never accept that Sharia can’t be examined critically. It mustn’t be so that just because someone says it’s sacred, it’s not to be the object of discussion. There’s been a lot of talk about people being offended, but you’ve got to ask yourself what is most offending - a few cartoons or two boys that have been hung in Iran or women that are stoned to death or have their hands chopped off. It’s important to keep the right perspective."

What would you say?

"I know what my personal preference is. I get most offended by seeing two teenagers hanging from the gallows in Iran, and I want the freedom to say that," says the Prime Minister. "By any means available, we must ensure that no man is persecuted or discriminated against solely because of his religion. That means that we must reject anti-semitism, islamophobia, anti-christianity and ensure that all men have protection for their right to believe whatever they want. That is an essential part of the answer. And that, I think, can be done in good manners, to say that we must be allowed be allowed to question everything and be critical, while protecting all people of all faiths against discrimination and persecution. I would even say that if that was something that could be agreed on universally, it would be a beautiful thing. That would also mean that Christians were guaranteed equal opportunities in Moslem countries."

But what you’re saying, what would that mean for the 12 cartoons. Should they or should they not have been published?

"This case is way past the point of having anything to with the 12 cartoons. I haven’t heard anybody in Denmark questioning the right of the newspaper to print the cartoons. What you’re doing is asking me as Prime Minister, but that is basically a flawed line of questioning, because over such things the government holds no power, we leave that to the courts. We do have laws about speech in Denmark. Laws that go further than the laws of certain other countries in restricting Freedom of Speech."

Several people have been saying that this is also linked to the harsh immigration debate. In parts of the world the Danish People’s Party is seen as interchangeable with the government. Is it true that a problem exists here?

"I addressed that point in my New Year’s Speech, where I made crystal clear that the government condemns any action or utterance which aims to demonise groups of people due to their religion or ethnicity as a matter of course. I have repeatedly urged that while we keep an open debate about immigration, it should be proper and respectful. And looking at a map of Europe, the debate in Denmark isn’t that much different from the debate in other countries."

What price has Denmark paid for this?

"Our image has been broad-sided in the short term. But looking at the longer term, I see no hindrance to Denmark restoring its image. Denmark’s role as an extrovert nation with a strong international commitment - including the per capita second highest assistance to developing countries in the world - is after all so basic to our image that in the long run we’ll have no problems there," the Prime Minister says. "This is one of those incidents that will be part of the political history of Denmark. It’s the greatest challenge in the foreign arena Denmark has faced since we were occupied. It’s a crisis between Denmark and the Moslem World."