Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?

[SFL Cat]

I would say since the bombing specifically turned the tide in favor of the socialists -- pre-bombing projections indicated the incumbant government would remain in power -- then yes, the terrorists got what they wanted and basically made Spain bow to their wishes.

In addition, I've heard most pro al-Qaeda websites are trumpeting the election results as a victory...whether it is true or not, that is what the followers will believe. Wouldn't surprise me to see several more similar attacks in other European nations...even anti-war countries like France and Germany. After all, we're all infidels, and attacks on France and Germany doesn't automatically mean more troops will be coming after them.

[Galaril]

Many here in South Korea our very concerned that this country might be next with their elections coming in three weeks.The situation is very similar to Spain the conservative ruling party voted reluctantly to send troops but if things were to go bad many would blame them for the fallout.Also, the ploitical situation is not good here these days anyways so who knows.The security here is pretty good but is anyone safe now
adays?

[cartman]

There is a bit of precedent for this in European politics, that MIJB can personally attest to. A couple of years ago, when Pim Fortyun was the leader of a party in Holland, no one was giving his pary much of chance to win the election. He was assassinated shortly before the election, and his party won the election. This was attributed to sympathy votes for his party.

The political party ended up unravelling, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a new round of elections held due to party imploding. If the newly elected party isn't able to lead the country effectively, there is the likelihood of a new round of elections in the next 12-18 months. Parlimentary governments don't have an ironclad length of term like we are used to in the US.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.

Right. As with most of Europe, including Britain, the Spanish populace has been vehemently opposed (as in 80+% opposing) to the war in Iraq. Very hard to imagine any ruling party winning an election under these circumstances.

FWIW, I suspect that if somebody on either side of the aisle could muster a serious opposition to Blair in Britain, his days might be numbered for the same reason (though the discrediting of the BBC's report on Iraq intelligence probably did help him).

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by cartman

There is a bit of precedent for this in European politics, that MIJB can personally attest to. A couple of years ago, when Pim Fortyun was the leader of a party in Holland, no one was giving his pary much of chance to win the election. He was assassinated shortly before the election, and his party won the election. This was attributed to sympathy votes for his party.

The political party ended up unravelling, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a new round of elections held due to party imploding. If the newly elected party isn't able to lead the country effectively, there is the likelihood of a new round of elections in the next 12-18 months. Parlimentary governments don't have an ironclad length of term like we are used to in the US.

Fortuyn's LPF party got into a goverment with the CDA (Christians) and the VVD (Liberals) after getting about 15% in stead of 10% of the votes.How big the influence was, we never know. Especially as Fortuyn was winning votes per day nearing the election day. Plus, it was clear that he would only have gone into the Dutch national politics to become prime minister, nothing less...
Without Fortuyn as the dominant leader, his party broke up into three parts and within a few months and within 100 days the CDA-VVD-LPF goverment fell.
After new elections, the LPF party was punished for their incompetence, yet the CDA and VVD won again and basically continued with what they were doing.

To get to the point, the Fortuyn murder run through my mind too the past days, wondering how much sense people put into their vote, in stead of the emotion of the past days. But if (in both cases) the difference of votes turning around is 5%, I wonder if those people should have voted in the first place... Voting is not a game, you have to stand behind your decission and make it by thinking out all the pro's and con's, not by living by the day and let yourself be influenced by the kind of tv programs you watch or the news papers you read...

And one last thing:
Were are our Spanish correspondents when we need them?

[KeyserSoze]

Well, I´m here (i´m Spaniard). I understand the upset in some of you, fellows, but the main reasons of these elections are internals, and not by the fear of the bombs (we were receiving attacks of the terrorist long before you thought it was a problem).

The reasons.

1- More than 80% of the people was against the intervention in Irak. I do not judge the action itself, but a government have to serve the people, no bother them. The bombs itself create anger against PP, no fear. A lot of people understand the war like an intent of Aznar to make himself a name, and a lot of people is disgusted.

2- 8 years of government are long for any government. The PP government has been specially harsh in some matters and dull in resolving some internal problems. Before the elections, none of them has a great advantage, and the gap was closing

3- The main reason. The des(information). In Spain the public tv channels (and radio) are very important, and their actuation has been horrible. The popular members forced all the situation (media, institutional speeches, embassadors) to blame ETA, even the proofs that point AlQuaida. When the people knows it (internet and cellulars), there was a lot of Anger. We felt like the government was cheating us. And doing this the day before the elections is not a very smart move, when more than 25% of people haven’t decide to vote until these day.

Personally. I had decided to vote PP, but the way they tried to cheat me, I voted in blank. I change my vote not the thursday, but the sunday morning. I usually get in these trains (if the attack would have been the tuesday, maybe I would been in the hospital.. or worse).

We have been fighting against terrorism since 1978. We have used the force, we have negociated. We tried to solve the problem without surrending, even when the rest of the world called them “freedom fighters”. The US has only help us when they saw the problem at home, France just a little before. None American has died in ETA attacks, while we have far above 250 deads (counting Atocha, Irak, and Afghanistan) in islamic-terrorist war.

We are determined to fight terrorism we have been for al my life, but just when our population supports the actions and, more important, when the population believes in this government. The PSOE leader, has said that will retire the force if the forces in Irak aren´t a UN mission, the 30 of june( the day that was suppose to be the change in power).

One last advice. Fighting terrorism by the force, without giving these people a better future, is a 5 years solution.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Nice post, KeyserSoze.

I hope our American fellow boardmembers now see things a little bit more from your point of view.

[Marc Vaughan]

Eloquently put KeyserSoze.

[Fritz]

From Strategypage.com

TERRORISM: March 11 and "The Arrangement"


March 15, 2004: The March 11th terrorist attack in Spain killed over 200 people and wounded another 1,400. This was the most violent terrorist attack in Spanish history. At first it was thought to be the work of Basque ETA separatists. ETA members had recently been captured with large quantities (half a ton of explosives in one case) of bomb making materials. The government has been pursuing ETA terrorists with particular vigor for the past eight years and ETA was thought to be desperate to show they were still viable.

But evidence collected from one backpack bomb that did not go off, a stolen van with blasting caps and a Islamic conservative audio tape, and eye witnesses, pointed to Islamic terrorists. The unexploded bomb yielded a cell phone (used to detonate the bombs) and a phone card that led to the arrest of five Moslems (three Moroccans and two Indians). ETA strenuously denied responsibility for the bombings, while al Qaeda said that they had done it.

Osama bin Laden has declared in the past that part of his jihad is to reverse the "Reconquista" which, in 1492, ended over six centuries of Islamic rule in southern Spain. The Reconquista led to all Moslems (and Jews) being expelled from the country. Spain was one of several European countries to be invaded and occupied by Moslem armies in the last thousand years. Moslem occupation didn't end in the Balkans until the early 20th century. The Balkan wars of the 1990s were partly caused by the aftereffects of centuries of Moslem occupation.

Spain has had a growing Moslem population in the last few decades, fueled by a growing Spanish economy, and the usual economic distress in Arab countries. Spain has 300,000 Moroccan residents, and over 600,000 Moslems. But most of these Moslems are recent arrivals. In 1985, there were only 30,000 Moslems in the country, and only recently were mosques allowed to be built. The last ones were destroyed over 500 years ago.

Many of the Moslems in Spain are illegal immigrants and high unemployment in Spain has made the Moslems unpopular because they compete for scarce jobs. But unemployment is higher in Moslems communities, and most of the Moslem migrants make little effort to integrate into Spanish culture. Thus there are many young men who find al Qaeda, and it's call for Islamic war against infidels (non-Moslems) attractive.

Since September 11, 2001, Spain has rounded up about two dozen suspected al Qaeda members. Like other European nations, Spain has been content to let the Moslem migrants keep alive their traditional customs (including suppressing women's rights and teaching children hatred of non-Moslems). European nations have long had an "understanding" with Islamic radicals. The Europeans would grant Islamic radicals in general, and their leaders (and their families in particular) sanctuary, as long as there was no terrorist violence in Europe. This arrangement has largely succeeded, if only because the Islamic radical leaders resident in Europe were, in effect, hostages. Start killing Europeans, and we ship you, your wives and kids back to the countries that want to try you for murder and rebellion.

But September 11, 2001 raised the ante. Attacking America meant that the Americans could call on Europe for assistance. Europeans feel a debt of gratitude to the Americans, who came to Europe's aid during two World Wars and the Cold War. And before that, the United States was a place where Europe could dump it's malcontents, rebels and surplus population.

As Europe cracked down on the Islamic radicals in it's midst, there was shock when the extent of local Islamic radicalism was revealed. But the Europeans were reluctant to push their investigations too far. There are over fifteen million Moslems in Europe and the Europeans were afraid of stirring them up. But many of these European Moslems were already radicalized. During the last two years, several Moslem radical groups in Italy and France were caught planning terrorist attacks, in violation of "the arrangement." While many Europeans began to demand that the Moslems either integrate into their new home cultures, or go back to their native lands, only the Netherlands has made this public policy. Most Europeans still believe that the Moslems should be allowed to live as they did in the nations they came from. This is one of the major differences between the United States and Europe. America sees itself as a great melting pot. Migrants retain much of their ancestral culture in America, but also adopt a commonly accepted American lifestyle. First generation migrants often have trouble with this, but the kids born in the United States don't. In Europe, Moslem migrants are encouraged to maintain their ancestral culture from generation to generation. This is ironic with the Moslem migrants, as the major reason they migrated to was to get away from a culture that opposed progress, economic freedom and democracy. Europeans are generally oblivious of this contradiction, although this is changing. After the March 11th bombings, the rate of change will increase.

But meanwhile, many Spaniards still demand that Spain back off from its support for the American war on terror. Spanish opposition to participation in the Iraq operations was particularly intense. It was felt that this would just stir up the Islamic radicals and make Spain a target. But the investigation of the bombings will probably turn up extensive Islamic radical activity in Spain before 2003. Restraint will be a hard sell when it becomes clear that the enemy has no restraint and sees withdrawal from Iraq as weakness and an invitation to more terrorist attacks. National elections in Spain yesterday saw the ruling party lose 30 percent of its pre-March 11 support. People were angry over the March 11 attacks and many believed the government, and it's support of the Iraq invasion, was at fault. But the new government has vowed to fight terrorism.

How do you negotiate with terrorists who see themselves as on a mission from God? How do you negotiate with a movement whose goal is the destruction of your culture, and your conversion to Islam, or else? Many innocent Spaniards died on March 11th, but so did "the arrangement." But many Europeans will continue to support some kind of "arrangement," without even admitting that "the arrangement" exists.

[sachmo71]

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.

One last advice. Fighting terrorism by the force, without giving these people a better future, is a 5 years solution.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fritz

How do you negotiate with a movement whose goal is the destruction of your culture...

With your knee in their chest and your knife at their throat.

[Maple Leafs]

I guess the problem I have with that line of thinking is that, for some of these terrorists, the very definition of "better future" includes a lot of dead Westerners.

It's nice to project our needs and wants onto everyone else and assume they just want better education, open trade, etc. But in a lot of cases (not all, but a lot) those priorities are very small for them in comparison to, say, smiting their enemies.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.



I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?

What I got from his statement is that force alone won't solve the problem. So you blast Al-Qaeda to smithereens with our firepower. That doesn't solve the root problem that gave rise to the radical groups in the first place. Another group spouting the same beliefs is gonna rise up in it's place to give some glimmer of hope to the destitute and downtrodden.

I put it this way after 9/11. There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. If even 0.0005% believe in the tenets of Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, that leaves 500,000 potential terrorists out there. To them, it is better dying through a violent act to make a statement than to die after suffering a lifetime of poverty. So the threat of our superior firepower isn't much of a deterrent to them. There has to be some sort of solution to the issue that gives these people more hope to improve their current situation than the short term satisfaction they get from their violent acts. What that solution is, I don't have a clue.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by cartman

What I got from his statement is that force alone won't solve the problem. So you blast Al-Qaeda to smithereens with our firepower. That doesn't solve the root problem that gave rise to the radical groups in the first place. Another group spouting the same beliefs is gonna rise up in it's place to give some glimmer of hope to the destitute and downtrodden.

I put it this way after 9/11. There are around 1 billion Muslims in the world. If even 0.0005% believe in the tenets of Al-Qaeda and other radical groups, that leaves 500,000 potential terrorists out there. To them, it is better dying through a violent act to make a statement than to die after suffering a lifetime of poverty. So the threat of our superior firepower isn't much of a deterrent to them. There has to be some sort of solution to the issue that gives these people more hope to improve their current situation than the short term satisfaction they get from their violent acts. What that solution is, I don't have a clue.

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

I don't think that anyone here assumes that the sole motivation of the terrorists involved is this - however their recruitment relies upon their being a bedrock of desperate individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for a 'cause', if you improve the standard of living for a country then it is less likely that their will find it so easy to recruit people into their organisations (and also less likely to find sympathisers amongst their general populace).

IMHO this is one of the reasons that western terrorist organisations such as the IRA/ETA etc. tend not to use suicide bombers etc., people in western countries have a higher standard of living and so are more reluctant to sacrifice themselves as they have more to lose ...

[Maple Leafs]

Poverty is a factor. But a bigger factor is the culture these kids grow up in. They're taught from a young age that it's heroic to die for a cause (much like American kids, by the way), and that one noble cause is the destruction of the Western infidels. So these kids grow up hating America and its allies, and that hate grows when they look around see Uncle Sam occupying countries and dictating policies and basically interfering in their lives.

So the question is, how do you change something as fundamental as the type of education that kids receive, and yet not be seen as interfering in their culture? You can swoop in and change their schools and hand out food and build strip malls, but then they point and say "See, America is destroying our culture and replacing it with their own!" But if you leave things the way they are, you allow the conditions that breed terrorism to continue.

No easy answers here...

[KeyserSoze]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Thanks, Keyser. I did have one question, though.



I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that using force against terrorists will not work, and that we should instead focus our efforts on improving the infrastructure of countries where the terrorists come from through aid and the like? Am I understanding your correctly?

I dont wanna make discusion it´s just my point of view. Probably is wrong.Ok lets go.

The terrorist groups are always supported by a big mass of people. In Euskadi there are from 100.000 to 200.000 people supporting the ideals of ETA. Another terrorist group in Spain (The GRAPO) is out of business for lacking support.
Do you think AlQaida is just the terrorist? There are a lot of people supporting them. You can kill all the terrorist, but there will be some people in this group that will take their place.

Look at Israel. They have a long bloody war. Are they safer? The only way out is an agreement or the mutual genocide.

I dont know the solution. You have to fight the terrorists, of course, but you have to correct the main causes (if there are) of their rage.

Look at WWI an WWII. In the First the allies make an harsh peace to the common people. In the second the allies punish the nazi chiefs (maybe japanese too?), but make easier the life of the rest.

I think that the iraqui people has a good group of laws, an economical security, and a sense of being a free country, a few of them will be in the mood to support killers. But if they are poor and think they are dominated, well a lot of them, will replace AlQaida.

I repeat myself. Its my opinion. If you no agree it because you are probably right



I ve read Maple Leafs post. I think you are very right. But if we helped them is less probable to see how they attack you. It´s very difficult I agree. I dont know the right way, but just punish them its not the way I think

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Here we have the dangerous assumption that poverty and improving their life is the motivating factor.

That is very true that those are not a motivating factor for Al-Qaeda, but those situations allow for the easier fomenting of support for their causes. Why aren't there widespread Christian terrorist groups? Because for most Christians their standard of life is relatively comfortable. The IRA has lost a lot of popular support as the Irish economy has improved greatly over the past 10 years. They are still active, and probably will be until some resolution comes regarding Northern Ireland, but it is the hardcore IRA that are still active.

I'd look at it like this: Alcohol consumption doesn't make you have sex, it just improves the situation for it to occur. Poverty doesn't make someone a terrorist, but is improves the reception of the message of the radical groups.

[Fritz]

My reply was in direct response to the thread I quoted. I don't presume to know the full extent of cartman's thoughts, but he did link terrorism to poverty.

If you want to say the poverty can contribute to terrorism, I will go along. If you want to make that a primary cause, then I can only agree in some cases.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by cartman

Why aren't there widespread Christian terrorist groups? Because for most Christians their standard of life is relatively comfortable.

1.) definition
2.) access to other means of political power
3.) differening goals among various peoples

----------

Terrorism is most often about political power. To kid yourself into anything else is a mistake.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

I dont wanna make discusion it´s just my point of view. Probably is wrong.Ok lets go.

The terrorist groups are always supported by a big mass of people. In Euskadi there are from 100.000 to 200.000 people supporting the ideals of ETA. Another terrorist group in Spain (The GRAPO) is out of business for lacking support.
Do you think AlQaida is just the terrorist? There are a lot of people supporting them. You can kill all the terrorist, but there will be some people in this group that will take their place.

Look at Israel. They have a long bloody war. Are they safer? The only way out is an agreement or the mutual genocide.

I dont know the solution. You have to fight the terrorists, of course, but you have to correct the main causes (if there are) of their rage.

Look at WWI an WWII. In the First the allies make an harsh peace to the common people. In the second the allies punish the nazi chiefs (maybe japanese too?), but make easier the life of the rest.

I think that the iraqui people has a good group of laws, an economical security, and a sense of being a free country, a few of them will be in the mood to support killers. But if they are poor and think they are dominated, well a lot of them, will replace AlQaida.

I repeat myself. Its my opinion. If you no agree it because you are probably right



I ve read Maple Leafs post. I think you are very right. But if we helped them is less probable to see how they attack you. It´s very difficult I agree. I dont know the right way, but just punish them its not the way I think

Thanks for your response. By the way, I don't think you are wrong at all. I just wanted to be sure I understood your opinion.

[Maple Leafs]

Here's one view of the election results, in a historical context, from Salon.com (a very left wing publication, for whatever that's worth). I know next to nothing about Spanish history so I'll leave it to our Spanish members to comment on how accurate this description is.

Rebirth of a nation
In the aftermath of the Madrid bombings, the election in Spain changed the European dynamic in the war on terror.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Norman Birnbaum



March 16, 2004 | The shattering defeat of the conservative Spanish government by the Socialist Party, with its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq and end Spanish support for the Bush doctrine, was a striking sequel to the terrible act of terror that struck Madrid. What happened at the polls on Sunday in Spain, however, can only be understood by retracing a half-century of Spanish history.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, victor in the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War (with a great deal of help from his allies Hitler and Mussolini), was a survivor. He abandoned his German and Italian friends as the fortunes of war turned against them, and he lived on as head of an authoritarian regime until his death in 1975. His regime was near collapse in 1959, but was saved by cash and support from the Eisenhower administration. The generalissimo may have garroted and jailed the opposition, clubbed strikers and kept women in medieval legal bondage, but he was, after all, reliably anticommunist. He offered the U.S. airports and ports to defend the Christian West.

By the time Franco died, Spain had dramatically changed. For its younger citizens, Che Guevara and Robert F. Kennedy were heroes. The young women who earlier were confined to convent schools went to universities in miniskirts. The aging dictator was seen as an unlovable patriarch whose time had come and gone. The church, meanwhile, was led by the great Vatican II cardinal, Tarracon. After one of Franco's speeches about increases in prosperity the cardinal said, "Spain has produced more of everything except justice." I asked a Spanish friend what it was like in 1975 as Franco lay dying. He said, "All you need to know is that in the entire country, there was not a bottle of champagne to be had in the stores."

The transition to parliamentary democracy was remarkably quick. The younger and middle-aged elites of the old regime recognized that Spain could not be deemed European unless and until it cast off fascism. In February of 1981, the irreducible fascists in the army seized Parliament and attempted a coup. After initial hesitation, the king put himself at the head of the nation and ordered the generals back to their armories. The coup was denounced at once by the European governments. (English Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was especially firm.) The U.S. secretary of state, Alexander Haig, said that it was an internal Spanish matter on which he would not comment. U.S. forces in Spain had been confined to their bases that day, before the seizure of Parliament. Many Spaniards wondered on which side the U.S. had been so neutral.

Democratization continued. Many exiles had returned, and Spanish culture marvelously came to life (think of the films of Pedro Almodóvar and the novels of Manuel Vazquez Montalbán). The country achieved in a decade what took the Western Europeans a generation. They learned to live on the edge of the modern age. In 1982, the great party of the Spanish Republic, the Socialists, won the election under Felipe Gonzalez. The Socialists instituted a Spanish welfare state like the other European countries, but their main achievement was to consolidate the cultural Europeanization and democratic ethos that make Spain a vital modern nation. There were plenty of problems: A segment of the Basque movement that had been so active against Franco demanded total independence, and used terror. The Socialists employed repellent methods against them, death squads, which eventually came to light to undermine the Socialists' moral credentials. There was, too, corruption among Socialist officials, and a series of very public scandals. It is to Spain's credit that the scandals were public, but they certainly dampened the exaltation of the first decade of freedom.

In 1996, Jose Maria Aznar became prime minister as head of the Popular Party. The party was, as most modern parties are, a coalition. It included older elements distinctly nostalgic for the black-and-white (mostly black) days of Franco, liberal Christian Democrats and followers of Opus Dei (the half-secret conservative Catholic movement), high finance, entrepreneurs and technocrats. Its voters were drawn from the vastly enlarged urban middle class. Educated thanks to the Socialist expansion of higher education, their aging parents taken care of by the new social security system, they forsook the party that had made their prosperity possible. The Popular Party was very much in the tradition of the Spanish right; it insisted on a centralized Spain, sought to limit the federalism written into the constitution, and refused any negotiation at all with the Basque movement. Indeed, it treated the moderate Basque Party as no better than the independence movement -- and so undercut the chance for a peaceful compromise. Economically, the Popular Party launched a speculative boom visible in ever more housing construction at ever higher prices -- and a stock market surge.

The Socialists in 2000 warned that the government's failure to make long-term social investments -- in education, health services and research -- would cost Spain dearly. They were right, but their own project floundered. Their internal conflicts, serial changes in the leadership, and inability to find a suitable successor for Gonzalez led to a loss of energy and support among the unions, the young and the educated. Their electorate gradually receded to the groups most in need of social protection: the elderly and the poor. The continuing support of the critical intelligentsia hardly made up for losses in the larger cities.

Aznar won again, and with an absolute majority, which went to his head. He became increasingly contemptuous of the opposition, of his critics in the media, and of civil society. When in 2002 the oil tanker Prestige foundered off the Atlantic Coast in a gigantic ecological disaster, the government refused to accept responsibility for its incompetent management. Aznar's policies in education (a return to obligatory religious instruction, at the limits of constitutional legality), immigration (grudging where not xenophobic), and the economy (systematic deregulation) moved from liberal Christian democracy toward a fundamentalism of the right. He shocked many Spanish sensibilities by using L'Escorial, Phillip the Second's monument to himself, to stage the wedding of his daughter (complete with his friend, the Italian prime minister and conservative vulgarian Silvio Berlusconi in striped pants and a visibly pained royal family as guests.) Spain is a country of old social distinctions with a sense that these ancient inhibitions have outlived their usefulness. Many in the public thought they detected in their prime minister the soul of a parvenu.

Certainly there was something frenetic about Aznar's enlistment of Spain in the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. He had a major role in obtaining the signatures of Tony Blair and Berlusconi for the letter of loyalty to the U.S. drafted by an obliging CIA agent -- a letter that enraged French Prime Minister Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder and marked a large success for the Bush White House. Europe had been split.

Aznar refused parliamentary debates on the veracity of the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, denounced his critics as disloyal to the West and to Spain. His U.N. ambassador and his foreign minister read from a Bush script with dogmatic certainty. When on Feb. 15 last year over a million citizens took to Madrid's streets to join the worldwide protest, there was one episode of violence. As the police encircled the protagonists, they were instructed by the Interior Ministry to let them go -- they were, obviously, provocateurs. Aznar's visits to the Bush ranch and the White House, his speech before the Congress (or rather, before congressional staff), meanwhile increased his sense of self-importance. Aznar believed that he had made Spain, through the Bush connection, a major world power. The fact is, he separated his nation from its erstwhile European allies and evoked the suspicions of the Latin American nations. He also threw away, with astonishing casualness, Spain's legacy of close relations with the Muslim nations.

Aznar is, clearly, not devoid of a political sixth sense. Something told him not to run again, and he turned over the party to the more conciliatory figure of Mariano Rajoy. But the arrogance of Aznar and some of his ministers disfigured the campaign. The state TV channel was about as objective as Fox News: The journalists working there made their discontent known.

The Socialist campaign was doggedly consistent. Party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stuck to three themes. Spanish troops would be withdrawn from Iraq and the nation returned to a European foreign policy with a renewal of its close ties to France and Germany. Eleven percent unemployment and underinvestment in the future would be attacked by a comprehensive program of social investment. An open style of governance would be his method of conducting public business. Zapatero was intelligent, conciliatory and focused.

Like many others, I wondered if he had the necessary aggression to be a leader. Zapatero, the youngest member of Parliament when elected at age 26, was the protégé of Felipe Gonzalez. Clearly, the old master knew what he had. Zapatero dismayed many of his own partisans and the entire left when he said he would not claim the prime ministership if he did not attain more votes than the government's candidate.

By the middle of last week, the game seemed over. The polls suggested that the government would lose its absolute majority, but still win the election (the figures gave it around 41 percent and the Socialists 36 or 37 percent). Aznar, too, knew what he had when he named the gentlemanly Rajoy his successor: He was distinctly less threatening and irritating than Aznar himself. The Socialists (I talked with a number of persons who will now be ministers) were resigning themselves to another four years of opposition. The government's left and liberal critics in the media were hopeful that Rajoy would change the atmosphere, which they found detestable under Aznar. His hints and his own turns of phrase even led to hope that he would deemphasize the Bush alliance and move again toward Europe.

Then the catastrophe intervened, early in the morning of Thursday, March 11. Commuter trains filled with ordinary persons -- those who, in fact, had no cars with which to drive to work, namely immigrants, workers and students -- were blown up. As Madrid fell into chaos, the government announced that the culprits were the Basque separatist group ETA. Aznar himself telephoned the major newspapers to insist that the government knew this for a fact -- twice he called El Pais, the nation's most prestigious paper and one rather critical of him. The foreign minister instructed the ambassadors to tell foreign governments that this was what the government knew.

However, a vigilant citizen near one of the stations from which the trains had come noticed a van parked by men who were wearing ski masks on a mild March day. It was in the van that the police found detonators as well as a Quranic tape. A telephone in a backpack that contained unexploded bombs provided more clues. As millions took to the streets to protest on Friday, the intelligence agencies were already closing in on Islamist suspects. The government repeated the ETA story -- despite an ETA denial. The public officials involved spoke to Cadena Ser, the radio station owned by the El Pais group. Cadena Ser broke the story, evoking a great deal of abuse from the official media and the sobriquet "wretched" ("miserables") from the interior minister. The minister spent much of Friday and all of Saturday repudiating his earlier pronouncements.

Saturday, the day before the election, is by law a day of reflection -- without campaigning of any kind. Mobilizing by cellular phone, thousands gathered in front of the Popular Party's offices. The first hundreds who came were told by the police to leave and were asked for their identity cards. The crowd grew and the police formed a cordon around the building and did nothing. The crowd's slogans were clear: "We will not vote until we know the truth" and, more to the point, "Your war, our deaths." This was the taunt directed at both Aznar and Rajoy when they voted in Madrid the next morning. There were demonstrations of the same kind in front of the PP's offices in every major city. In the election, participation was 8 percent greater than four years ago. The additional voters were first-time voters and former Socialist voters who had abstained in recent elections or had moved to the Popular Party.

In the final tally, the Socialists increased their share of the vote from 34 percent in 2000 to 42 percent in 2004; the Popular Party decreased from 44 to 37. The Socialists gained 39 seats, and are 12 short of an absolute majority; the Popular Party lost 35. The Socialists actually gained 3 million votes, the Popular Party lost 700,000. Zapatero has the authority of the largest vote total ever recorded in democratic Spain.

Clearly, the Popular Party rightly feared that attention to an Islamist attack would remind the public of its responsibility for war on the side of the United States. Its subsequent attempts at deception were politically suicidal -- the work of leaders in the grip of panic. It enraged many in the public, recalled the government's arrogance in the recent past, and offended a populace that had good reason in familial memory to take democracy seriously. The distrust of the Popular Party, heightened by its response to the bombing, also reminded the citizens of their other grievances, economic and social. Zapatero's straightforwardness, originally depicted as boring, now became attractive.

Zapatero will be dependent upon votes from the smaller formations for his parliamentary majorities, but there is little doubt that he will obtain these. In his first press conference, he declared that the Spanish troops would indeed leave Iraq unless the provisional authority was replaced by a U.N. authority and Iraqi self-rule. He declared that Spanish foreign policy will now have three central points. One is to be a revival of the European connection, strengthening of the European Union and the European social model. The second is Spain's special relationship to Latin America, where the president of Argentina has already expressed his delight at the Socialist victory. The third is the United Nations as a framework for relations between the developed and impoverished worlds. (Presumably, Spain's U.N. ambassador, who was on Fox TV on Sunday evening pronouncing the election a triumph for terrorism, will be moving on. I rather like the old gentleman: He reminds me in dress and manner of an oblivious actor successfully playing the part of an official of the Franco regime, who hasn't been told Franco has died.)

The obstacles in the Socialists' path are many. The presumed responsibility of the Islamists for the attack may increase tensions, which are already considerable, between the Spanish population and the large numbers of Muslims living legally and illegally in Spain. Zapatero's break with the "coalition of the willing" is sure to excite Bush's retaliation, direct and indirect, open and covert. Nevertheless, Zapatero has had the courage to proclaim the break. At his press conference, he remarked that Blair and Bush were wrong about Iraq and he invited them to engage in self-criticism. His courage and determination align him with France and Germany and leave Berlusconi, already in serious difficulty on many fronts, exposed to still more domestic criticism.

George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice and their servants in the American media have shown a curious view of democracy, never ceasing to praise the "courage" of foreign leaders who obey not their own electorates but the White House. Perhaps this display of Spanish independence will contribute to the education of the American public, which has been told to believe that other nations are to be taken seriously only when they are appendages of Bush's policies. In his campaign, Zapatero openly expressed the belief that the world would be better off with a President Kerry in office. Clearly, U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations has now generated the sort of reciprocity that Americans will have to learn to live with.

Back to Spain. William Faulkner remarked that in his native South the past wasn't over: "In fact, it isn't even past." Spain, too, is a society with an enormous amount of historical memory. The Popular Party is not a gang of fascists. However, its hypernationalist ideology, its authoritarianism, and its self-righteous lying were nonetheless unpleasant reminders of the past. People were reminded that Aznar's grandfather had a very successful career under Franco. Zapatero's was an officer in the Republican army, executed after being taken prisoner. When the crowds gathered in Madrid on Friday, there were two main chants. One was "Spain, united, will never be defeated." The other was, "The people, united, will never be defeated." The two Spains of 1936 seem still to be there.

Zapatero has said that he wants to be prime minister for all, and in a gracious concession speech, Rajoy promised to work with him in the national interest. Perhaps it has taken the impact of terror to open this as a possibility. But the election has already changed Spain and the dynamic in Europe, and given Americans reason to reflect on their possibilities.


- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Norman Birnbaum is professor emeritus at the Georgetown University Law Center. His most recent book, "After Progress, American Social Reform and European Socialism in The Twentieth Century," is an Oxford University Press paperback. He has just returned from Spain.

[ISiddiqui]

a very left wing publication, for whatever that's worth

You didn't have to include the disclaimer... just reading the article is enough .

[KeyserSoze]

Well, it´s a lefty document, but it´s very accurate in the big lines. It´s fine if you read it with a critic spirit

[Icy]

Another Spanish here, i totally agree with KeyserSoze and also identify with him. I has been another PP supporter during the last 8 years, or better said during the last 7 years. Their economic politic has been good, they boosted our economy to put us at the head of the growing economic powers in Europe, also they reduced the unemployment. However, latelly this economic boost is going agains us, as the Popular party failed on the long term social politics. The problem was that as the banks loans were so cheap, and everybody saw a good economic future, everybody (who could) started to buy new homes, new cars, luxury items, etc that boosted even more the economy but also raised the prices a lot, making now almost impossible for the average young guy to buy his first house. This is a big complain versus Aznar goberment, they worked hard to boost the economy, but as allways happends, the rich are more rich now and the poors more poor, this helps a lot to the growment of the left supporters. Also as KeyserSoze pointed, they have controled mostly of the media and played with the people opinion. In the other hand, the socialists control "el Pais" newspaper and the "Cadena SER" radio station, that are the bigger media companies here (both owned by same group). During all this 8 years and moslty during the last year they have been pushing really hard versus the Aznar goberment and decissions, specially versus the USA support and the IRAK war.

All this factors made the PP to lose part of their supporters, their problem is that in Spain, as that left wing article posted above said, the people here is still afraid of the right wing, as some of their leaders, like "Fraga" were also leaders at Franco dictatorship. The Popular Party is a partnership of all the right parties, some of them moderated but also some of them radical fascists. Aznar managed really well to keep the fascists controlled, claiming that the PP was a center party, but after they got the absolut power at 2000 elections, the turn to the right was more pronounced, this convined with the new ambition from Aznar to become more known around the world is that have made them to lose lots of moderate right wing supporters, including me.

Last sunday, as KeyserSoze, i vouched in blank, i can't support later PP politics, but i also don't like the socialists leaded by Zapatero as i don't think that they are capable of keeping Spain growing on today's world politic and economy scenario. Socialists probably will improve the solical politics left appart from the Populars, but they won't have the big support from the bussinesmen, banks etc as Populars had, and sadly, today's scenario is mostly about economy. Without a strong economy you don't have money to improve your social politics. You must remmeber that in Spain mostly of Schools, universities, hospitals, etc are paid by the goberment, so we need to generate a good amount of income throught taxes, and the bussines is what generates mostly of that taxes income.

After explaning you a bit more the thoughts from a Popular supporter like myself, mybe you will underestand a bit more why us, the moderate right wing supporters punished Aznar past Sunday, that was one of the keys of their defeat.

The other causes that made the socialists to win has been well explained by KeyserSoze. About the polls being wrong, they couldn't count that after the bombing, we beat a record of participation on the elections, with 2 new millions of participants.(Spain has 40 millions of habitants so it's a good %). Mostly this new participants vouched to the socialists to punish Aznar, that leaded us to the war in IRAK against the 80% of Spanish, and also after the bombing lied us about the authors, tried to control the media etc.

As you could see, i don't think this related to Spanish being cowards or not having nuts like some pointed, but i also agree that Zapatero should have waited a bit before anouncing that we will retire from IRAK, as this is not toally true, we will retire in July if the UN doesn't lead the forces in IRAK. So it's not that we are running fast to home afraid of terrorists but that we don't support the ocupation of a country in the name of a supossed "war on terrorism" that hiddes orther interests. We have a war vs terrorism here too and only France supports us a bit as they suffer from ETA terrorism too, i haven't ever seen any USA goberment to help us to fight against ETA.

Mybe too much written at my post, just wanted to show you what the moderate Aznar supporters think. Also remember that are the guys in the center who decide who wins the elections at any country, there are a few radicals at both sides, but the majority is in the middle and heads to one side of the other depending on a lot of factors. The politics that forget this, as Aznar did, are the ones who lose. Too much power to just one party is never a good thing, politics tend to boost their egos with the power and forget why are them at the power chair.

[yabanci]

Good info, Icy. Your report is more informative that 90% of the media reports.

[KeyserSoze]

Well I have lied you! I dont vote in blank. There´s a party called " Partido del Mutuo Apoyo Romantico" "Mutual Romantic Support Party". I can´t ressist it!


I vote them .

Seriously I agree totally with Icy.

Off topic. In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?

In the US, there are occasionally groups like this that exist but they very rarely can meet the requirements for being placed on the ballot in many (or even any) states.

Typically, they are not intended as candidates anyway, their "candidacy" is either done as a joke or as a publicity campaign.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by KeyserSoze

Off topic. In Spain we have so curious parties like this. Did in your country have these kind of groups?

I know in the UK they also have the 'Monster Raving Loony Party', which has been running in elections for decades...Typical british non-sense...

Check out their website at
http://www.omrlp.com/

[Maple Leafs]

In Canada, we had (maybe still have) a federal Rhino Party. Their platforms included paving the St. Lawrence River and creating an Olympic Male Synchronized Swimming Team.

[Dutch]

For what it's worth, I remember seeing the polling figures.

Before the blast, Aznar was leading like 60-40 and after the blast he was losing 60-40. If I remember correctly.

That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For what it's worth, I remember seeing the polling figures.

Before the blast, Aznar was leading like 60-40 and after the blast he was losing 60-40. If I remember correctly.

That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon.

You're not remembering correctly. The difference was something like 3-5 points. PP was probably going to win, it was close, and they were going to lose seats.

[Dutch]

Okay.

As I said, "That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon."

Before the attacks, polls had given the governing party a lead of 3-5 percentage points.

With 99 percent of the votes counted, Zapatero's Spanish Socialist Workers Party soared from 125 seats to 164 in the outgoing 350-seat legislature. The ruling Popular Party fell from 183 to 148.

From an AP writer, cannot verify this source.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay.

As I said, "That is a huge victory both morally and strategically for those who choose to use terror as an effective weapon."

While I have been defending the Spanish voters throughout this thread, because I think that their reaction was completely understandable during the circumstances, I agree that this is an unfortunate aspect of the matter, and the world is less safe right now because of it. However, I think the terrorists, with the threats they have made against France and Germany since the attacks in Spain, have already thrown away the strategic victory. By threatening the countries who didn't back the Iraq War, they are going to unite the world against them more than ever. The strategy and tactics the West uses might be different, but long-term I think this will ultimately heal some of the divisions that occurred over Iraq. Short-term, there are obviously going to be some serious problems, and working them out is probably not going to be a pretty process.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by clintl

... they are going to unite the world against them more than ever.

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time

if you stopped here you would havea good point

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

Canada needs to get behind the Strange Brew II movement for it to have any chance of being made...

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Canada needs to get behind the Strange Brew II movement for it to have any chance of being made...

Sorry, the hockey playoffs start soon. We'll be busy for the next few months.

[rkmsuf]

Damn you puckheads...Rick Moranis isn't getting any younger...or funnier...

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

Not true. I think it depends on how the US approaches the problem. If the US does it in a collaborative, consensus-building way, then it can happen. If the US continues to insist that everyone has to follow its lead, and there's no room for other opinions, then it's not going to work for long.

[The Afoci]

Originally Posted by clintl

Not true. I think it depends on how the US approaches the problem. If the US does it in a collaborative, consensus-building way, then it can happen. If the US continues to insist that everyone has to follow its lead, and there's no room for other opinions, then it's not going to work for long.

Yeah, then the whole world will join hands and sing together.

The whole world will never, ever agree on something of value for very long. It is bound to be screwing someone in the world over, so obviously they will be against it.

[Maple Leafs]

I posted a lefty view, so here's a view from the right. Waaayyy to the right.

MAR. 15, 2004: A WIN FOR TERROR
By David Frum

Terrorism has won a mighty victory in Spain. The culprits who detonated those bombs of murder on 3/11 intended to use murder to alter the course of Spanish democracy – and they have succeeded.

In the months since the attacks on the World Trade Center, we have all heard – and ourselves often repeated – much brave talk about how terror cannot prevail, how justice must inevitably win through, etc. etc. etc.

The news from Spain suggests how very wrong those hopes were.

People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife. Sometimes they convince themselves that if only they give the Cyclops what he wants, they will be eaten last. And this is what seems to have happened in Spain.

Unlike the 9/11 attacks in the United States – which were intended as acts of propaganda to influence the Arab and Muslim world – the 3/11 attacks against Spain were acts of propaganda aimed at the local market. And again unlike 9/11, this time the terrorists succeeded brilliantly. They helped to defeat a government committed to joining the war against them – and helped elect a government whose leading members not so quietly dream of a separate accommodation.

From a human point of view, the carnage of 3/11 is a tragedy without purpose or meaning. But from a political point of view, 3/11 was aimed at a result – and it achieved it. The new socialist government of Spain will be a far less willing ally of the United States. Indeed, this attack against Spain may well succeed in pre-emptively knocking Spain out of the war in the way that Pearl Harbor was intended – but failed – to knock out the United States in 1941.

Lesson: terrorism can work. Prediction: therefore expect more of it. Expect more terrorism aimed at the United Kingdom, against Australia, against Poland, and – ultimately – against the United States. For the terrorists must now wonder: If murder can influence elections in Spain – why not in the United States?

In the United States, the terrorists have to make a very fine calculation: Which would hurt President Bush, their supereme enemy, more – to attack or not to attack?

Those who know American politics well would probably answer: choice number two. The more time goes by without a terrorist attack, the less President Bush benefits from his prestige as a war leader – and the more the national conversation turns to new subjects on which President Bush holds less of an advantage. On the other hand, the terrorists may be less sophisticated. They may hope to defeat their enemy George W. Bush in the same way that they defeated their enemy Jose Aznar. In which case – brace yourselves.

[Bubba Wheels]

How to deal with terrorists: Sean Connery in the Untouchables "For everyone of yours they put in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the grave."

To Spain: Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Socialism is such a great way of life that Russia ditched it for capitalism and China gets farther and farther away from it every day in the name of capitalism. Spain should be proud of themselves for not only showing the yellow flag to terrorists but also aligning with France and American college campuses as the only other places on earth that are still promoting Marxism (oh yeah, don't forget Cuba!)

One last point: France despite its opposition to all U.S. actions against terrorism is being highlighted for terrorist actions by the same groups you would think would be cutting France some slack for them showing the yellow flag. So Spain, you might have really stepped in it in more ways than one, showing the yellow flag may still get you a terrorist 'kick-in-the-teeth' and you can't run to the U.S. for help.

[Dutch]

Waaayyy to the right.

Could you quantify this remark? Especially since it was the only thing of note in the post that was yours? Thanks in advance.

[Leonidas]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

The world will never unite around a common cause for any significant length of time if the United States is a driving force behind that cause.

Discuss.

Name one global cause or initiative in the last 70 years that did not include the United States as a driving force or participant? Name one successful, international-scale humanitarian relief effort in that same timeframe that did not include the US as a significant player? How many successful, international relief missions have Russia, China, Spain, France, and Iran spearheaded without US support in that timeframe?

The perception in many places is the US is the bad guy, but the reality is the US continues to put more food in mouths and more money in the pockets of the lesser privileged around the world than any other country by a very, very large margin. Even Iran of all places took our aid during their recent earthquake.

So folks around the world can make all the negative statements they like to further your own personal biases and agendas, but they still know where to go when the crap hits the fan.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Leonidas

The perception in many places is the US is the bad guy, but the reality is the US continues to put more food in mouths and more money in the pockets of the lesser privileged around the world than any other country by a very, very large margin.

Absolutely true. But so often, it's the perception that shapes the reality. Regardless of all the good the US may do, if the world has decided that the US is going to shoulder the blame for all the world's problems it will be very difficult to build any sort of consensus.

I think my comment has been misinterpreted as a shot at the US. It's not. I just feel that at this point in history, the US could declare that the sky was blue and many around the world would take to the streets to call it green.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Could you quantify this remark? Especially since it was the only thing of note in the post that was yours? Thanks in advance.

Are you familiar with David Frum and his work? If so, the remark wouldn't need qualification. Frum has made his career as a right-wing commentator, first in Canada (he's the son of a famous and respected Canadian journalist) and now in Washington. His recent book was a virtual fan letter to George Bush. With apologies to Anne Coulter, Frum may be the most unashamedly conservative commentator in US politics today. That doesn't necessarily make his wrong, but if you don't think that he's solidly right wing then you're using a different political spectrum than the rest of us.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally Posted by clintl

....the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.

The misinformation attempts seemed so painfully obvious, a day and a half of Spanish (and US) government ETA blame and Al Qaeda denial at the same time as members of ETA were desparately denying anything to do with it and Al Qaeda were taking credit. As soon as the no longer deniable news came out that it was Al Qaeda Spanish people were understandibly furious about being lied to. In some parts of the world lies will get goverments in trouble.

[Dutch]

So he's like Michael Moore, but a right wing guy? I wouldn't pay him much heed, then. But I didn't see what was written as being "right-wing". Unless you put a "right-wing" guy behind the words.

But if Michael Moore were to suggest that terrorism won a battle today, I'd agree with him.

What was the terrorist's mission objective in killing all those people? If not anarchy, surely ousting the current governent was a joyous goal of theirs? Am I wrong?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So he's like Michael Moore, but a right wing guy?

Not quite Michael Moore. Maybe a better comparison would be Al Franken, without the sense of humor.

Frum is a good writer, and you can certainly give him credit for not being afraid to voice an unpopular opinion. But I believe that it's important to consider the source when you read an opinion piece, so I flagged it here (just like I did with the left-wing Salon article I posted earlier).

[Buccaneer]

Then why didn't you qualify your lefty view post as wayyyyy to the left? Lefties are just as much (if not more so, imo) more extremists in their views than righties.