Calling someone's analysis "unsophisticated" is not my definition of consideration and camaraderie. Especially someone who has never shown a trace of contempt in your direction (or anyone else's). I am more than happy for you to pick apart my posts, criticise and offer counterpoints in a constructive and respectful way, though. I believe this is the point of posting on an intelligent publication's website.

"Mr Dreaming"? Poking fun again?

Also I note that you failed to address any one of the points I raised in my attempt to "sophisticate" my "unsophisticated" ways.

‘I did not realise this forum was a place for personal attacks but hey, whatever floats your boat.’ [WunAla Dreaming]

Not guilty, please re-read. Sorry about the name Mr WunAla, or would it be Mr Dreaming?

I'm going to try to veer discussion in a new direction because as someone else pointed out, when it comes to Turkey joining EU, that discussion should take place in Charlemagne's column's comments, not this particular post.

Considering the rather luckluster commitment NATO is showing in Afghanistan (I include America in that criticism - invading Iraq was a mistake), I would argue it's kind of silly to assign this much importance to NATO, much less who gets to run NATO. Simply put, it's steadily becoming obvious that NATO is more of a PR outfit nowadays than a muscular military alliance without the common threat of communism to motivate everyone. The people of France, Germany, etc., really don't feel what's going on in Afghanistan is "their" problem, and Americans themselves are losing support for the war in Afghanistan. So there's a very real possibility that an alliance comprising 3/4 of the world's defense spending might lose a war to a bunch of poorly trained jihadists in Afghanistan.

Given that context, even if Obama did "sacrifice" Rasmussen (a far-from-irreplaceable head of NATO) to appease the leader of the country with the second largest army in NATO, I don't view that as a very important blow to Western values. Losing Afghanistan though and convincing the world that NATO is a paper tiger are much more likely scenarios that would do much more to endanger Western values.

So we now need Sarkozy AND Erdogan to leave? It's sad to see that institutions are so obstructed by personalities.

Monsieur Sartre,

I did not realise this forum was a place for personal attacks but hey, whatever floats your boat.

But I will make a point of responding to the content of your post, in the spirit of good sportsmanship.

As for the EU and/or NATO being unfortunately used as battle grounds for internal politics, I have had a few opportunities to denounce my own country's repeated offences in this infamous exercise. Please read Charlemagne's post on British Conservatives' "losing their European decency", and my comments.

I was trying to point out that using religion as a bone of contention in the export of internal politics to the field of foreign affairs was not the same thing as, say, using a budget contribution rebate, subsidies for the launch of aircraft development programmes, agricultural policies, etc.

I believe (no pun intended) that religion, in many communities, forms part of the very core identity of the nation in question. There are no WTO, EU, NAFTA or NATO bodies in charge of negotiating religious advantages or settling spiritual disputes because the crushing majority of their members accept that religion belongs to the sphere of individuals, and not the State as a policy.

I also believe that our societies have fostered progress in part due to the constant political, social, economic or environmental challenges that religions face, challenges which can be brought about with a vast range of tools, all the way from satirical cartoons in the back pages of tabloids to the very heart of democratic life in chambers of parliament.

Were there internal agendas behind Erdogan's posture? Most likely. Does it make it the same thing as the (legitimate) bickering about the CAP? Not in my world.

And for the sake of being sophisticated, it is WunAla Dreaming, not WunUla.

Merci. :)

Jean-Saul Partre
I agree as well to your thoughtful observation that it would be a cost free but necessary demand from Erdogan to mollify the opposition party. A bluff he could afford to lose, but had to make.

A very interesting story that shows Obama's firm commitment to free speech. The U.S. owes a debt to the training wheels of Sarkozy and Merkel to prevent our neophyte bike rider-in-chief from crashing in the world arena.

The trouble is that they already have full-time jobs and aren't availible for hire.

WUNULA DREAMING, you wrote:

‘Charlemagne, I find it acutely contradictory that you would support the entry of Turkey in the EU while reporting this information which, in all honesty, would be one of the main reasons why Turkey should never be allowed in.’

I think your understanding of politics may be a little unsophisticated. Politicians often strike poses in the confident expectation that they will be over-ruled. In fact, they may be counting on it! If Erdogan huffed and puffed on the Rasmussen issue, it could well have been for internal consumption. What political capital the secular- right in Turkish politics would have made at his expense, if he hadn’t objected in the name of an offended Islam! And as far as NATO (if not the EU) is concerned, Turkey has some strong cards to play: Position. Size. Population.

Mr Erdogan’s bluff was called, that’s all. And we saw a rare instance of Euro diplomatic muscle being used for grown-up purposes.

FFScotland, John Page and Fxtrader, I could not agree more.

Charlemagne, I find it accutely contradictory that you would support the entry of Turkey in the EU while reporting this information which, in all honesty, would be one of the main reasons why Turkey should never be allowed in. Trampling freedom of expression underfoot is not exactly my definition of a typically moderate European attitude.

Secondly, appointing oneself the mouthpiece of a religious community that spans tens of countries from Sénégal to Indonesia and making political demands on that very shaky ground does not strike me as EU-like either.

And that, of course, is only two reasons why Turkey does not belong in Europe.

El Toro es Guapo, could you please enlighten us as to what exactly France has to do with the Algerian civil war? Facts-based explanation, preferably.

You call this aversion? Isn't this actually a grave mistake documented for all to see? What is so special about Rasmussen? Wouldn't another leader, any other, with name recognition (but without the anti-Islam baggage) serve better here? After all, America (with help from others) is fighting a war on terrorism in a Muslim country, correct?

This doesn't look like a disaster averted to me; it has all the earmarks of one that is actually dealt into the mix by Sarkozy (and Merkel.)

What I find so ironic is the fact that Turkey helped protect and defend West Germany against the like of Merkel for 50+ years. Now that The two Germanys united, Turkey is left out, again.

That is the moral disaster...

Obama seems a lot smarter than that. Did you try to have Lexington ask the question straight at a White House press briefing? The denial language might provide some clue.

Lucky that Sarko shut Obama up before the latter gave ground on free expression.

God forbid! Giving in to Muslim country demands!
Ohh! What a tragedy we averted.
Really? Shall we begin running comparisons about "Muslim" countries giving into the demands of the western world?
Shall we talk about how Algeria gave into the demands of France that resulted in 10 years of civil war in that country?
Mr Sarkozy got it wrong again. What a fool.
This clown just likes the sound of his own voice.

I'm pretty sure Charlemagne wasn't expecting to start a discussion on EU membership for Turkey and instead share a very interesting story.

Seems strange that Mr Obama (or any other EU leader) would have not supported Rasmussen based on Turkey's objections. After all, the standing of the West/EU internationally depends on its ability and willingness to back its ideals and the principle of freedom of expression is clearly a fundamental value for Europeans. Even if that upsets some on occasions, we must always support strongly those values.

Turkey is not, of course, a European nation and should never be admitted to the EU.

Some people in the EU are in favour of Turkey joining; more are not. The pro Turkey faction presumably want to win over some of the doubters. The argument repeated in your article that we must admit Turkey because otherwise we would be letting them down is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Why we should we care?

Instead, tell us how Turkey's membership will benefit us. And, frankly, Turkey has to make the case too.