He was party secretary of the Labour party from 1945 to 1969, a period through which the Labour party was in government for most of the time. The joint leadership between Lie and the most prominent prime minister during the period, Einar Gerhardsen has become famous in Norwegian politics both for its effectiveness in building the country and for its latter days bitter rivalry.

Lie was one of the people who rebuilt the Labour party from a party of class struggle to a broader mass party building the welfare state on a compromise between capitalism and socialism. He was one of the ideologers that formed a new kind of socialism where anti-capitalism was replaced by a modern social democratic quest for liberty for all. In domestic policy he pushed for social reforms along with his comrade in arms Gerhardsen.

In foreign and security policy he was much more controversial. He was driven by a distaste for communism whose anti-democratic tendencies he felt was a corruption of socialism.  He feared its spread and favoured NATO membership and nuclear armament. He went as far as agitating for nuclear arms on Norwegian soil and was somewhat of a Norwegian McCarthy in actively organizing networks to report on “suspicious activities”, and demanded internal loyalty. These things created a growing divide between him and Gerhardsen who had a less realist approach to foreign policy and a more open approach to dissent.

In 1967 the conflict between Gerhardsen and Lie came to a boil as Gerhardsen confronted him at the party congress, proposing to depose him as party secretary. According to eye witnesses Lie responded by threatening to “crush you like a louse”. Lie’s reign survived the attack at the ’67 congress, but he stepped down in 1969.

This was however not the end of his political influence. Even unto his sickbed for the last half year of his life, at age 103, he was approached by politicians and journalists alike for advice and comment. He remained an outspoken critic of the Labour party leadership whenever he meant that they strayed from the right path of social democracy. His retirement was also spent writing books, of which he published a respectable number.

Haakon Lie remained a giant in Norwegian politics until his death, and although controversial in many ways he will remain in Norwegian history as one of the architects of the post-war welfare state.

See also

• Obituary in the Guardian
• Haakon Lie on Wikipedia

Fogh Rasmussen is certainly controversial in many places. One of the big problems Turkey had with his candidature may be his involvement in the Mohammed caricature controversy, in which he supported Danish newspapers quite vehemently. He is also closely tied to former US president Bush and has been very supportive of the war in Iraq. This is understandably difficult for a Muslim country partially located in the Middle East.

Fogh Rasmussen, a right-liberal politician, has also been controversial domestically. In 1992 he had to resign from his post as Minister of Taxation preempting a vote of no confidence for misinforming the Danish parliament. He is also known for his adherence to the liberal ideal of the minimal state and a preference for low taxes. On the latter point he has been criticized for not doing enough, but he has implemented a “tax freeze”, promising at the least not to raise any Danish taxes. The most controversial of his policies is arguably his government’s hard-line stance on immigration, by many accused of bordering on the xenophobic.

Fogh Rasmussen has also made a name for himself as a strong EU supporter, and has reportedly been considered for several positions in the EU leadership. He has however run into many problems on home ground during his years in the Danish cabinet, with Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty, the Monetary Union and most recently opposition to the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.

The biggest challenge for NATO is however likely to be that many leaders in the Muslim world still connect Denmark and Fogh Rasmussen with the controversy over the Mohammed charicatures – a connection that could now spill over more strongly to NATO, giving more fuel to Muslim leaders that benefit from portraying it as an anti-Muslim alliance.

So what are the implications of Russia bombing a “near-NATO-member”? Is this a direct military challenge to NATO? Or have Georgia blown their chances for good relations with NATO by escalating aggression with South Ossetia? European commentators have barely woken from their sleep, and have yet to get to their keyboards and radio microphones to let us know what this all means. But all the ingredients of an international relations crisis seem to be there…

US deputy secretaryof state, Dan Fried, says the following to Financial Times: “It appears that the South Ossetians have instigated this uptick in violence,” he said. “We have urged the Russians to urge their South Ossetian friends to pull back and show greater restraint. And we believe that the Russians are trying to do just that.” This doesn’t harmonize well with reports of russian bomber jets, volunteer troops and military supplies spilling over the border.

According to Reuters, the UN Security Council has been up all night discussing the matter, without reaching any conclusions but aggravating Russia further.

What do I think? I’m not an expert on this matter, or even on international relations at all. But I do notice one thing: an absence of the kind of confronational rhetoric categorizing the cold war. Admittedly, the big guys themselves haven’t started commenting yet, leaving the speaking to the diplomats. But that might also mean neither Moscow nor Washington are prepared to let this escalate into a major international crisis.

This is a test of the new world order after the Cold War, as fighting erupts on Russia’s doorstep. Let’s hope this won’t be proof of the new cold war neoconservative Robert Kagan claims is in the making. As yet it’s too early for an uninformed being to make predictions. I’m waiting for European and later American commentators to wake up and tell me what we can expect.