Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement, regional or global, in which each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join in a collective response to threats to, and breaches of, the peace. Collective security is more ambitious than systems of alliance security or collective defence in that it seeks to encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally, and to address a wide range of possible threats. While collective security is an idea with a long history, its implementation in practice has proved problematic. Several prerequisites have to be met for it to have a chance of working.

History[link]

Early mentions[link]

Collective security, as suggested by many, is one of the most promising approaches for peace and a valuable device for power management on an international scale. Cardinal Richelieu proposed a scheme for collective security in 1629, which was partially reflected in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. In the eighteenth century many proposals were made for collective security arrangements, especially in Europe.

The concept of a peaceful community of nations was outlined in 1795 in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.^[1] Kant outlined the idea of a league of nations that would control conflict and promote peace between states.^[2] However, he argues for the establishment of a peaceful world community not in a sense that there be a global government but in the hope that each state would declare itself as a free state that respects its citizens and welcomes foreign visitors as fellow rational beings. His key argument is that a union of free states would promote peaceful society worldwide: therefore, in his view, there can be a perpetual peace shaped by the international community rather than by a world government.^[3]

Bahá'u'lláh (1817–1892), the founder of the Bahá'í Faith, prescribed collective security as a means to establish world peace in his writings during the 19th century:

The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world's Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquility of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation.^[4]

International co-operation to promote collective security originated in the Concert of Europe that developed after the Napoleonic Wars in the nineteenth century in an attempt to maintain the status quo between European states and so avoid war.^[5][6] This period also saw the development of international law with the first Geneva Conventions establishing laws about humanitarian relief during war and the international Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 governing rules of war and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.^[7][8]

The forerunner of the League of Nations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), was formed by peace activists William Randal Cremer and Frédéric Passy in 1889. The organization was international in scope with a third of the members of parliament, in the 24 countries with parliaments, serving as members of the IPU by 1914. Its aims were to encourage governments to solve international disputes by peaceful means and arbitration and annual conferences were held to help governments refine the process of international arbitration. The IPU's structure consisted of a Council headed by a President which would later be reflected in the structure of the League.^[9]

At the start of the twentieth century two power blocs emerged through alliances between the European Great Powers. It was these alliances that came into effect at the start of the First World War in 1914, drawing all the major European powers into the war. This was the first major war in Europe between industrialized countries and the first time in Western Europe the results of industrialization (for example mass production) had been dedicated to war. The result of this industrial warfare was an unprecedented casualty level with eight and a half million members of armed services dead, an estimated 21 million wounded, and approximately 10 million civilian deaths.^[10][11]

By the time the fighting ended in November 1918, the war had had a profound impact, affecting the social, political and economic systems of Europe and inflicting psychological and physical damage on the continent.^[12] Anti-war sentiment rose across the world; the First World War was described as "the war to end all wars",^[13][14] and its possible causes were vigorously investigated. The causes identified included arms races, alliances, secret diplomacy, and the freedom of sovereign states to enter into war for their own benefit. The perceived remedies to these were seen as the creation of an international organization whose aim was to prevent future war through disarmament, open diplomacy, international co-operation, restrictions on the right to wage wars, and penalties that made war unattractive to nations.^[15]

Collective security in the League of Nations[link]

After World War I, the first large scale attempt to provide collective security in modern times was the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919-20. The provisions of the League of Nations Covenant represented a weak system for decision-making and for collective action. An example of the failure of the League of Nations' collective security is the Manchurian Crisis, when Japan occupied part of China (which was a League member). After the invasion, members of the League passed a resolution calling for Japan to withdraw or face severe penalties. Given that every nation on the League of Nations council had veto power, Japan promptly vetoed the resolution, severely limiting the LN's ability to respond. After two years of deliberation, the League passed a resolution condemning the invasion without committing the League's members to any action against it. The Japanese replied by quitting the League.

A similar process occurred in 1935, when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Sanctions were passed, but Italy would have vetoed any stronger resolution. Additionally, Britain and France sought to court Italy's government as a potential deterrent to Hitler, given that Mussolini was not yet in what would become the Axis alliance of World War II. Thus, neither enforced any serious sanctions against the Italian government. Additionally, in this case and with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the absence of the USA from the League of Nations deprived the LN of another major power that could have used economic leverage against either of the aggressor states. Inaction by the League subjected it to criticisms that it was weak and concerned more with European issues (most leading members were European), and did not deter Hitler from his plans to dominate Europe. The Ethiopian monarch Emperor Haile Selassie I continued to support collective security though, having assessed that impotence lay not in the principle but in its covenantors commitment to honor its tenets.

One active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov. However, there are grounds for doubt about the depth of Soviet commitment to this principle, as well as that of Western powers. After the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and the passivity of outside powers in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 it was shown that the Western Powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis Powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939, in order to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the German invasion of Poland on September 1.

Recent events[link]

The 1945 United Nations Charter, although containing stronger provisions for decision-making and collective military action than those of the League of Nations Covenant, does not represent a complete system of collective security, but rather a balance between collective action on the one hand and continued operation of the states system (including the continued special roles of great powers) on the other.

Cited examples of the limitations of collective security include the Falklands War. When Argentina invaded the islands, which are overseas territories of the United Kingdom, many UN members stayed out of the issue, as it did not directly concern them. There was also a controversy about the United States role in that conflict due their obligations as an Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (the "Rio Pact") member. However, many politicians who view the system as having faults also believe it remains a useful tool for keeping international peace.

The role of the UN and collective security in general is also evolving given the rise of internal state conflicts since the end of WWII, there have been 111 military conflicts world wide, but only 9 of which have involved two or more states going to war with one another. The remainder have either been internal civil wars or civil wars where other nations intervened in some manner. This means that collective security may have to evolve towards providing a means to ensure stability and a fair international resolution to those internal conflicts. Whether this will involve more powerful peacekeeping forces or a larger role for the UN diplomatically will likely be judged from a case to case basis.

Theory[link]

Collective security can be understood as a security arrangement in which all states cooperate collectively to provide security for all by the actions of all against any states within the groups which might challenge the existing order by using force. This contrasts with self-help strategies of engaging in war for purely immediate national interest. While collective security is possible, several prerequisites have to be met for it to work.

Sovereign nations eager to maintain the status quo, willingly cooperate, accepting a degree of vulnerability and in some cases of minor nations, also accede to the interests of the chief contributing nations organising the collective security. Collective Security is achieved by setting up an international cooperative organisation, under the auspices of international law and this gives rise to a form of international collective governance, albeit limited in scope and effectiveness. The collective security organisation then becomes an arena for diplomacy, balance of power and exercise of soft power. The use of hard power by states, unless legitimised by the Collective Security organisation, is considered illegitimate, reprehensible and needing remediation of some kind. The collective security organisation not only gives cheaper security, but also may be the only practicable means of security for smaller nations against more powerful threatening neighbours without the need of joining the camp of the nations balancing their neighbours.

The concept of "collective security" forwarded by men such as Michael Joseph Savage, Martin Wight, Immanuel Kant, and Woodrow Wilson, are deemed to apply interests in security in a broad manner, to "avoid grouping powers into opposing camps, and refusing to draw dividing lines that would leave anyone out."^[16] The term "collective security" has also been cited as a principle of the United Nations, and the League of Nations before that. By employing a system of collective security, the UN hopes to dissuade any member state from acting in a manner likely to threaten peace, thereby avoiding any conflict.

Basic assumptions[link]

Organski (1960) lists five basic assumptions underlying the theory of collective security :^[17]

• In an armed conflict, member nation-states will be able to agree on which nation is the aggressor.
• All member nation-states are equally committed to contain and constrain the aggression, irrespective of its source or origin.
• All member nation-states have identical freedom of action and ability to join in proceedings against the aggressor.
• The cumulative power of the cooperating members of the alliance for collective security will be adequate and sufficient to overpower the might of the aggressor.
• In the light of the threat posed by the collective might of the nations of a collective security coalition, the aggressor nation will modify its policies, or if unwilling to do so, will be defeated.

Prerequisites[link]

Morgenthau (1948) states that three prerequisites must be met for collective security to successfully prevent war :

• The collective security system must be able to assemble military force in strength greatly in excess to that assembled by the aggressor(s) thereby deterring the aggressor(s) from attempting to change the world order defended by the collective security system.
• Those nations, whose combined strength would be used for deterrence as mentioned in the first prerequisite, should have identical beliefs about the security of the world order that the collective is defending.
• Nations must be willing to subordinate their conflicting interests to the common good defined in terms of the common defence of all member-states.

Collective defense[link]

Current major military alliances

  NATO, CSDP

  SCO(Not a Military Bloc), CSTO

  SADC

  PSC

Collective defense (also collective defence) is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a member state if it is attacked by another state outside the organization. NATO is the best known collective defense organization. Its now famous Article V calls on (but does not fully commit) member states to assist another member under attack. This article was invoked after the September 11 attacks on the United States, after which other NATO members provided assistance to the US War on Terror in Afghanistan.

Collective defense has its roots in multiparty alliances, and entails benefits as well as risks. On the one hand, by combining and pooling resources, it can reduce any single state's cost of providing fully for its security. Smaller members of NATO, for example, have leeway to invest a greater proportion of their budget on non-military priorities, such as education or health, since they can count on other members to come to their defense, if needed.

On the other hand, collective defense also involves risky commitments. Member states can become embroiled in costly wars in which neither the direct victim nor the aggressor benefit. In the First World War, countries in the collective defense arrangement known as the Triple Entente (France, Britain, Russia) were pulled into war quickly when Russia started full mobilization against Austria-Hungary, whose ally Germany subsequently declared war on Russia.

See also[link]

• NATO
• Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance
• European Common Security and Defence Policy
• Shanghai Cooperation Organization
• Collective Security Treaty Organization
• African Union
• Peace and Security Council
• Union of South American Nations
• First World War
• Second World War
• Soviet-German relations before 1941

References[link]

Bibliography[link]

• Beer, Francis A., ed. (1970). Alliances: Latent War Communities in the Contemporary World. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston. 
• Bourquin, Maurice (1936). Collective Security, A record of the Seventh and Eighth International Studies Conference. Paris: International Institute. 
• Claude Jr., Inis L. (2006). Collective Security as an Approach to Peace in: Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations ed. Donald M. Goldstein, Phil Williams, & Jay M. Shafritz. Belmont CA: Thomson Wadsworth.  pgs. 289-302
• Ghosh, Peu (2009). International Relations (Eastern Economy Edition ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd. pp. 389. ISBN 978-81-203-3875-3. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=y88qTWmqb7oC. Retrieved 15 October 2010. 
• Lowe, Vaughan, Adam Roberts, Jennifer Welsh and Dominik Zaum, The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, paperback, 794 pp. ISBN 978-0-19-958330-0.
• Organski, A.F.K. (1958). World Politics. Borzoi books on International Politics (1 ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 461. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=cL0zAAAAIAAJ. Retrieved 15 October 2010. 
• Roberts, Adam and Dominik Zaum, Selective Security: War and the United Nations Security Council since 1945 (Adelphi Paper no. 395 of International Institute for Strategic Studies, London), Abingdon: Routledge, 2008, 93 pp. ISBN 978-0-415-47472-6.
• Wight, Martin (1977). Systems of States ed. Hedley Bull. London: Leicester University Press.  pp. 149

External links[link]

• de Wet, Erika, Wood, Michael. Collective Security, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• President Carter's Nobel Lecture

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Secretary General of NATO
Incumbent
Assumed office 1 August 2009
Preceded by	Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
Prime Minister of Denmark
In office 27 November 2001 – 5 April 2009
Monarch	Margaret II
Deputy	Bendt Bendtsen Lene Espersen
Preceded by	Poul Nyrup Rasmussen
Succeeded by	Lars Løkke Rasmussen
Leader of Venstre
In office 18 March 1998 – 17 May 2009
Preceded by	Uffe Ellemann-Jensen
Succeeded by	Lars Løkke Rasmussen
Minister of Tax
In office 10 September 1987 – 19 November 1992
Prime Minister	Poul Schlüter
Preceded by	Isi Foighel
Succeeded by	Peter Brixtofte
Personal details
Born	(1953-01-26) 26 January 1953 (age 59) Ginnerup, Denmark
Political party	Venstre
Spouse(s)	Anne-Mette Rasmussen (1978–present)
Alma mater	Aarhus University

Anders Fogh Rasmussen (Danish pronunciation: [ˈɑnɐs ˈfɔʊ̯ˀ ˈʁɑsmusn̩] ( listen); born 26 January 1953) is a Danish politician, and the 12th and current Secretary General of NATO.^[1] Rasmussen served as Prime Minister of Denmark from 27 November 2001 to 5 April 2009.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen was the leader of the Liberal Party (Venstre), and headed a right-wing coalition with the Conservative People's Party which took office in 2001, and won its second and third terms in February 2005 and in November 2007. Rasmussen's government relied on the Danish People's Party for support, in keeping with the Danish tradition for minority government. His government introduced tougher limits on non-ECA immigration and froze tax rates before he took office (the "tax freeze", or skattestoppet in Danish). He has authored several books about taxation and government structure.

In his early career, Rasmussen was a strident critic of the welfare state,^[2] writing the classical liberal book From Social State to Minimal State in 1993. However, through the 1990s, his views moved towards the political centre.^[3] Under Rasmussen, certain taxes were lowered, but the Conservative coalition partners repeatedly argued for more tax cuts and a flat tax rate at no higher than 50%. Fogh implemented an administrative reform reducing the number of municipalities (kommuner) and replacing the thirteen counties (amter) with five regions. Rasmussen referred to this as "the biggest reform in thirty years".

He is of no relation to either his predecessor, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, or to his successor, Lars Løkke Rasmussen; their shared last name is a very common one in Denmark.

Personal life[link]

Anders Fogh Rasmussen was born in 1952 in Ginnerup, Jutland, to farmer Søren Rasmussen and Marie Rasmussen (née Fogh). His surname is Rasmussen, while Fogh, his mother's maiden name, is his middle name and not considered part of his last name. He is correctly referred to as Rasmussen (not Fogh Rasmussen), unless his full name (including his given name) is used. In Danish media and society, he has often been popularly referred to as Fogh Rasmussen, or merely Anders Fogh, when not referred to by his full name, mainly to distinguish him from other prominent politicians in the country with the same family name.^{[citation needed]}

He matriculated in languages and social studies from Viborg Cathedral School, in 1969–1972.^{[citation needed]} and studied Economics at the University of Aarhus, graduating in 1978. He has been active in politics most of his life and has authored several books about taxation and government structure. He and his wife Anne-Mette (born 1958) married in 1978 and have three children: Henrik (born 1979), Maria (born 1981) and Christina (born 1984).

As an amateur cyclist, Rasmussen completed part of the notorious Alpe d'Huez stage of the 2008 Tour de France the day after the professional race took place.^[4] His attendance at Le Tour was at the invitation of Danish former cyclist Bjarne Riis. Rasmussen is also an avid runner.^{[citation needed]}

Early political career[link]

He has held numerous positions in government and opposition throughout his career, first winning a seat in the Folketing (Danish parliament) in 1978.

Politics[link]

In general, Rasmussen is in favour of centralisation, privatisation, and limiting the size of government.

Rasmussen wrote the book From Social State to Minimal State (Danish: Fra socialstat til minimalstat) in 1993, in which he advocated an extensive reform of the Danish welfare system along classic liberal lines. In particular, he favours lower taxes and less government interference in corporate and individual matters. In 1993 he was awarded the Adam Smith award by the libertarian society Libertas, partly because of this book.

Resignation as Minister of Taxation[link]

From 1987 to 1990 he was Minister for Taxation and from 1990 Minister for Economy and Taxation in the Conservative-led Poul Schlüter government.

In 1992 Rasmussen resigned from his ministerial posts after a report from a commission of inquiry had decided that he had provided the Folketing with inaccurate and incomplete information regarding his decision to postpone payment of several bills from Regnecentralen and Kommunedata from one accounting year to the next. Rasmussen disagreed with the findings of the commission, but faced with the threat of a motion of no confidence, he decided to leave his posts voluntarily.

2001 election[link]

His Liberal (Venstre) Party won power in the November 2001 election, defeating the Social Democratic government of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen and enabling him to form his first cabinet. That election marked a dramatic change in Danish politics. It was the first time since 1920 that the Social Democratic Party lost its position as the largest party in the Folketing (parliament), mainly due to a loss of working class votes to Dansk Folkeparti (The Danish People's Party).

Prime Minister of Denmark[link]

Following the 2001 election, Venstre formed a government in a parliamentary coalition with the Conservative People's Party to form a minority government with the parliamentary support of Dansk Folkeparti. Together these three parties survived both the 2005 election and the 2007 election.

After becoming Prime Minister, Rasmussen distanced himself from his earlier writings and announced the death of neoliberalism during the national elections of 2005. Commonly regarded as being inspired by the previous success of Tony Blair, Rasmussen now seems more in favour of the theories of Anthony Giddens and his third way. There was talk in Libertas of revoking Fogh Rasmussen's award as a result of this, though this never happened.

His government has also enacted tough measures designed to limit the number of immigrants coming to Denmark, specifically as asylumseekers or through arranged marriages. However, the Fogh Rasmussen governments have depended on the support of Dansk Folkeparti, and it is impossible to draw a clear dividing line between the ideology of Fogh Rasmussen and the politics of his government resulting from compromises with Dansk Folkeparti.

Tax reform[link]

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

After the elections in 2001, Venstre enacted a total stop tax increases. Venstre had successfully campaigned by claiming that taxes had been growing constantly during the previous eight years under the Social Democrats. While the overall tax burden was more or less unchanged from 1993 until 2001^{[citation needed]}, there was a shift in the taxation of income, both corporate and personal over to a higher level on personal consumption (especially through the "ecological taxes" (da. grønne afgifter)), which gave the average citizen the impression of rising taxes.

This "tax stop" was criticised by the parties on the left wing of Danish politics, allegedly for being "antisocial" and "only for the rich." Since the tax stop also froze the tax of real property (da. ejendomsværdiskat, 1%), it was beneficial to homeowners in the densely populated regions that have experienced an extraordinary increase in the prices of real estate. The tax of real estate is actually limited at a nominal level — not at a relative level. While the rate was one percent when the tax stop was enacted, the actual tax is much less today when the last few years' large increase in property value (+20%/p.a. in large cities) is taken into account. The Danish Economic Council has criticized this as unfairly benefiting current homeowners.

Even though the total tax burden was marginally higher in 2005 than it was in 2001, the tax stop was very popular among voters. Thus, in January 2005, the Social Democrats announced that they accepted the principle of a tax stop until at least one right-wing party was willing to participate in a tax reform.

The tax stop has, however, been ineffective, judging by Venstre's own intentions. The goal of the tax stop was to halt the growth of public expenditures (and halt the growth of taxes), but even with their cuts in public spending (which were considered aggressive by the political left wing), public spending continued to rise by approximately one percentage point above inflation each year.

From 2004 and onwards, minor tax cuts came into effect, on two accounts:

1. People with jobs got a 3% tax reduction on the 5.5% "bottom tax" (da. bundskat).
2. An "employment deduction" (da. beskæftigelsesfradrag) was introduced. This initiative is supposed to encourage people to get off welfare and take jobs instead.
3. The bottom limit of the "middle tax" (da. mellemskat) of 6%, is raised by 12.000 DKK every year, over the next four years. This was supposed to limit the income stresses of middle incomes and families with children.

In 2009 a major tax reform was implemented. The overall marginal tax rate was reduced by 7.5%. In the end, the top tax rate (topskatten) was not changed, but the income level at which it began was raised. This had the effect of removing 350,000 Danes from the top tax bracket. The medium tax rate was eliminated, and the lowest was reduced by 1.5%. Various other tax reforms were enacted such as an increase in the old age pension, incentives for renovation, and various initiatives designed to improve energy efficiency.^[5] Finance Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, called it the biggest reduction in the marginal tax rate since the introduction of income tax in 1903.^[6]

Some of the more ambitious elements of the reforms (such as a lowereing of the "top tax" rate) had to be changed or greatly reduced in order to receive the necessary support from the more tax friendly Danish People's Party.

2002 EU Presidency[link]

Rasmussen held the rotating presidency of the European Union from July to December 2002 during which period he proved his dedication to a pro-EU agenda and the guiding principles of the Ellemann-Jensen doctrine. He even pursued it to its logical conclusion by publicly denouncing the Danish collaboration policy during its second World War occupation, being the first Danish prime minister ever to do this. While his predecessors may not have been in favour of it, they had all implicitly maintained that it was 'a good thing',^{[citation needed]} because it had saved Danish lives.

During the EU presidency he was involved in a curious episode with then Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi. In a joint press conference on 4 October 2002 Silvio Berlusconi said: "Rasmussen is the most handsome prime minister in Europe. I think I will introduce him to my wife because he is even more handsome than Cacciari". Massimo Cacciari is an Italian philosopher and centrist politician opposing Berlusconi, and some gossip tabloids had alleged an affair between him and Berlusconi's second wife Veronica Lario. [2] Rasmussen was puzzled by this remark and Berlusconi quickly told him he'd explain later.

War in Iraq[link]

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

Under Rasmussen, Denmark supported American foreign policies.

As Prime Minister, Rasmussen strongly supported the 2003 Iraq War. As in most European countries he faced considerable opposition, both in the parliament and in the general population. Subsequent opinion polls suggested the Danish population's opinion was split on the issue. One vocal protester managed to get into the Danish parliament during the period before the war, where he poured red paint on the prime minister while yelling "Du har blod på dine hænder" (literally: "You have blood on your hands"). A member of the Danish parliament, Pernille Rosenkrantz-Theil, stated that it was a reaction she might have made under the circumstances, although she has later denounced such threatening behaviour against politicians. Denmark was one of only five countries to take part in the actual invasion operations (the others being the U.S, UK, Poland and Australia) though the contingent mainly consisted of two minor warships and staff and radio units, that were never involved in actual combat. In the months after the initial phase of the war, Danish troops participated in the multi-national force stationed in Iraq. Approximately 550 Danish troops were stationed in Iraq from 2004 and into 2007, first at "Camp Dannevang" and later at "Camp Einherjer", both near Basra. When the contingent of troops left around August 2007, it was not replaced and Denmark has shifted its focus to non-military support around Baghdad. The official reason being provided is that the Iraqi government should now be able to handle the security in the Basra area. Critics of Fogh Rasmussen argue that the withdrawal was motivated by a decreasing domestic support for the war.

In 2004 Rasmussen's government came under attack based on questions of how much intelligence it had with regard to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The government held hearings, and was forced to publish classified reports it had consulted about the likelihood of banned weapons existing in Iraq. While the Blair and Bush administrations have been the subject of criticism for extended periods because of their reliance on questionable intelligence, Rasmussen has managed to stay clear of this potential government crisis. This is probably largely because the motion passed by parliament (Folketinget) authorising the deployment of Danish troops states as the reason for the deployment Iraq's continued refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors in violation of the UN Security Council's resolution. The Danish deployment of troops was thus not formally based on a claim that Iraq had WMD's.

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.^{[citation needed]} 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 into the Denmark's involvement in the Iraq war, similar to the ones in the US and the UK, on the grounds that the his government took arms against Saddam not because of possible arms possessed, but because of Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions.

Gay marriage[link]

Civil unions between gay couples have been legal in Denmark since 1989. In January 2004, Rasmussen stated his belief that homosexuals should be able to be married in religious ceremonies, which is not currently allowed in the Evangelical Lutheran State Church of Denmark, but he has said it should be up to religious communities to decide whether to perform ceremonies for gay couples.^[7]

2005 election[link]

On 18 January 2005 Rasmussen called an election for 8 February 2005. He delayed the call by a couple of weeks because of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake which killed several Danes. His government had been criticized by a few Danes for what they thought was a slow response to that crisis, although a clear majority applauded the government's way of dealing with the disaster.

Although his party's support was reduced from the 2001 election, resulting in the loss of four seats, Venstre was able to maintain its coalition after the election through gains by other parties, and on 18 February Rasmussen formed the Cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen II.

Rasmussen received the most "personal votes" ever of any politician in the Folketing (Denmark's Parliament) with 61,792.

Muhammad cartoons and Danish goods boycott[link]

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

A major period of conflict in Rasmussen's political career concerned a set of cartoons printed in Jyllands-Posten, a major Danish newspaper. In September 2005 the newspaper printed a full page with 12 cartoons depicting various interpretations of Muhammad. Islam forbids depiction of the figure of Mohammed so Muslims found the cartoons extremely offensive. Rasmussen denied a request from 11 ambassadors of Middle-Eastern countries to discuss the issue. Rasmussen has described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. He was quoted, saying, later, that he "was deeply distressed that the cartoons were seen by some Muslims as an attempt by Denmark to mark and insult or behave disrespectfully towards Islam or Mohammed."^[8]

Municipal reform[link]

One of the main initiatives of Rasmussen's government was the introduction of a municipal reform, the aim of which was the geographic and administrative consolidation of smaller municipalities, and the abolishment of counties. Major areas of public services, such as the national health service was in turn consolidated into five regional bodies, while the number of municipalities was reduced from 271 to 98. The reform was ratified on 16 June 2005 and was effective as of 1 January 2007.

2007 election[link]

Rasmussen in Brazil with Lula da Silva, 25 April 2007

At 11:30 pm on 13 November 2007, the day of the election, Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed victory on the basis of almost complete results.^[9] By the morning of 14 November 2007, after results came through from the Faroe Islands and Greenland, Fogh Rasmussen's centre-right coalition of the Liberals, the Conservative People's Party and the Danish People's Party had obtained the 90 seats required for him to continue as Prime Minister, making him the longest-ruling Liberal Prime Minister of Denmark.^[10]

Resignation[link]

After being confirmed as the NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that he would resign as Prime Minister of Denmark on 5 April 2009.

NATO Secretary General[link]

Shortly following his second reelection in 2007, rumours began to spread in the Danish media that Rasmussen was a candidate for several high-profiled international jobs. At first rumour had it that he was informally one of the top candidates for the new position of President of the EU, which could be created when the Lisbon Treaty would come in to effect.^[11] Following the Irish rejection of the treaty in June 2008, it became obvious that this position would not be created in the near future, and so the talk in the Danish media began to revolve around Rasmussen's candidacy to the position of Secretary General of NATO. In winter and spring of 2009, fueled by Rasmussen's frequent travelling, these rumours intensified.^[12] Rasmussen denied being a candidate for any international position up until a few days before the official announcement of his selection was made.^[13]

September 2009: Rasmussen with US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama

Anders Fogh Rasmussen became the 12th NATO Secretary General on 1 August 2009, succeeding Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who held the post from 2004 until 2009.^[1] The announcement was made on 4 April 2009, at the 2009 Strasbourg–Kehl summit in Strasbourg. During the final selection process only one country, Turkey, remained opposed to Rasmussen's candidacy, partly because of his handling of the cartoon episode in 2005, when the publication in some Danish newspapers of cartoons of Muhammad caused violent protests.^[14][15] Another major point of Turkey's opposition was Denmark's tolerance of Roj TV,^[14][15] which is claimed by the Turkish government to be a mouthpiece for the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Eventually, Turkey withdrew its opposition to Rasmussen's appointment when it received assurances from US president Barack Obama that Turkish officials would be appointed to three high posts in NATO.

After taking up his duty as NATO Secretary General on 1 August 2009, Rasmussen's first mission was a visit to Afghanistan, where he met with President Karzai and senior Afghan ministers, including Minister for Foreign Affairs Spanta, Minister for Defence General Wardak, and Minister of Interior Atmar to discuss the then impending presidential and provincial council elections in the country.^[16]

In April, 2011, in relation to the 2011 Libyan civil war Rasmussen said that on the day NATO started taking command of the mission under the U.N. mandate, the alliance ruled out arming the rebels. Rasmussen said the coalition under his control was clear about its mission. "We are not in Libya to arm people. We are in Libya to protect civilians against attacks" from loyalists of the country's Muammar Gaddafi government, he said at that time.^[17]

In October 2011, the intensive 7-month NATO intervention had "now moved much closer" to its end, according to Rasmussen. The last two major outposts of Gaddafi loyalists -- Gaddafi's hometown of Sirte and the town of Bani Walid -- had fallen and the deposed leader had been killed as he tried to flee from Sirte^[18] toward Misrata.^[19] Gaddafi's killing came with close NATO aerial support of Libyan ground forces.^[18]

Honors[link]

• Medal of Merit in Gold on 17 December 2002.
• Grand Cross of the Order of Dannebrog on 7 April 2009.

Bibliography[link]

• Opgør med skattesystemet — der straffer de aktive og belønner de passive, Liberal, 1979; ISBN 87-7519-045-1
• Fra socialstat til minimalstat: en liberal strategi, Samleren, 1993; ISBN 87-568-1204-3

Filmography[link]

• Fogh bag facaden, 58 min., Danish documentary, by Christoffer Guldbrandsen, 2003, [3]
• Den hemmelige krig, 58 min., Danish documentary, by Christoffer Guldbrandsen, 2006, [4]
• AFR, 83 min., Danish mockumentary, by Morten Hartz Kaplers, 2007, AFR (film)
• CIA's danske forbindelse, by Mette Aaby, 2008, [5]

See also[link]

• Cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen I
• Cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen II
• Cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen III
• List of Prime Ministers of Denmark
• Politics of Denmark

References[link]

External links[link]

Find more about Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Wikipedia's sister projects:
	Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
	Images and media from Commons
	Learning resources from Wikiversity
	News stories from Wikinews
	Quotations from Wikiquote
	Source texts from Wikisource
	Textbooks from Wikibooks

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Anders Fogh Rasmussen

• (English) Video Blog of the NATO Secretary General
• (English) Facebook page of Anders Fogh Rasmussen
• (English) Twitter account of the NATO Secretary General

v t e Prime Ministers of Denmark Moltke Bluhme Ørsted Bang Andræ Hall Rotwitt Hall Monrad Bluhme Krag-Juel-Vind-Frijs Holstein-Holsteinborg Fonnesbech Estrup Reedtz-Thott Hørring Sehested Deuntzer Christensen Neergaard Holstein-Ledreborg Zahle Berntsen Zahle Liebe Friis Neergaard Stauning Madsen-Mygdal Stauning Buhl Scavenius Buhl Kristensen Hedtoft Eriksen Hedtoft Hansen Kampmann Krag Baunsgaard Krag Jørgensen Hartling Jørgensen Schlüter Nyrup Rasmussen Fogh Rasmussen Løkke Rasmussen Thorning-Schmidt

v t e Presidents of the European Council President-in-Office (1975–2009) Liam Cosgrave · Aldo Moro · Gaston Thorn · Joop den Uyl · James Callaghan · Leo Tindemans · Anker Jørgensen · Helmut Schmidt · Valéry Giscard d'Estaing · Jack Lynch · Francesco Cossiga · Charles Haughey · Pierre Werner · Dries van Agt · Margaret Thatcher · Wilfried Martens · Anker Jørgensen · Poul Schlüter · Helmut Kohl · Andreas Papandreou · François Mitterrand · Garret FitzGerald · Bettino Craxi · Jacques Santer · Ruud Lubbers · Margaret Thatcher · Wilfried Martens · Poul Schlüter · Helmut Kohl · Andreas Papandreou · Felipe González · François Mitterrand · Charles Haughey · Giulio Andreotti · Jacques Santer · Ruud Lubbers · Poul Schlüter · Aníbal Cavaco Silva · John Major · Poul Nyrup Rasmussen · Jean-Luc Dehaene · Andreas Papandreou · Helmut Kohl · Jacques Chirac · Felipe González · Lamberto Dini · Romano Prodi · John Bruton · Wim Kok · Jean-Claude Juncker · Tony Blair · Viktor Klima · Gerhard Schröder · Paavo Lipponen · António Guterres · Jacques Chirac · Göran Persson · Guy Verhofstadt · José María Aznar López · Anders Fogh Rasmussen · Costas Simitis · Silvio Berlusconi · Bertie Ahern · Jan Peter Balkenende · Jean-Claude Juncker · Tony Blair · Wolfgang Schüssel · Matti Vanhanen · Angela Merkel · José Sócrates · Janez Janša · Nicolas Sarkozy · Mirek Topolánek · Jan Fischer · Fredrik Reinfeldt Permanent President (since 2009) Herman Van Rompuy