Did Aznar’s government deserve to fall?
Aznar knew the score when the bombings occurred that his leadership was in jeopardy. As the news came out, Aznar connected the bombing to ETA. Even as doubts emerged that the Basque separatists could or would conduct such an attack, Aznar blamed ETA. Perhaps he wanted to drown out mention of al-Qaeda from the press. He could not have approached the problem with greater weakness. He avoided the probabilities and muddied comprehension of what happened. He failed to provide leadership to Spain.
Had he been more direct, the results might have been different. Coming up the elections, Aznar’s party had a narrow lead over the socialists. Aznar had worked hard to repair his image after the protests in Spain against involvement in Iraq. The war was an issue in the campaign, one that was a weakness for the party. But the danger to Aznar was not that voters would change their minds, but that people who opposed the war would not stay at home. And they were not expected to leave their homes. The bombings got them out of bed.
We should not be surprised by the election results. When tragedies and defeats occur, governments fall. The Roman Republics had provisions for a six-month dictatorship in response to emergencies. Chamberlain’s collapse came after the defeat of Poland and the failure to put an army in the field against Germany; Churchill’s government almost collapsed after the disastrous Scandinavian War the fall of France, but his ability to unify the nation through his speeches kept him in power. Sometimes more drastic changes are made, such as when the Fourth French Republic fell. Portugal’s revolution was brought on as well by poor management of the crisis in the colonies. What about Israel? Should voters have rewarded the anti-settlement camp after the assassination of Rabin? As cynical as I am, I would believe that the attack focused doubts about the peace process in the minds of Israelis, that they were not rewarding the assassins.
How about USA?
Has not General Tommy Franks predicted military dictatorship if there were another terrorist attack on American soil?
The elections were for Spain. Americans can only cry if they find that the results weaken US position in the world. The “Coalition of the Willing” is a weak collection of hawks and dictatorships and opportunists. It is easy to pull Spain out. My message to Zapatero:
leave Spanish troops in and influence American policy!
[On edit:] Here is a map of the EU countries that have contributed troops to Iraq (from
Le Monde.)
Posted by:
Nathanael / 12:48 PM :
(0) comments
"The terrorism that the war in Iraq was supposed to stop is infinitely more powerful that it was one year ago."
--Romano Prodi, quoted in Le Monde
Posted by:
Nathanael / 10:35 AM :
(0) comments
Monday, March 15, 2004
Wow! Are the results of the elections in Spain being overinterpreted! I am surprised at all the rhetoric that is being thrown around regarding whether or not it is a mandate on Aznar's commitment to US war in Iraq or whether or not it is a victory for al-Qaeda. Is there not a simpler explanation: Spaniards don't feel safer because of Aznar's policies(his conservative party was one or two percentage points ahead of the socialists in the last polls, a position that Aznar worked hard to achieve after the war). Certainly Zapatero's promise to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq will do nothing directly to improve internal Spanish security, and it is just as likely that Spain was a target because of weaknesses in security. Perhaps the involvement of the bombers themselves might be only indirectly related to the war in Iraq: if they were Moroccans, they could be manifesting historical animosity toward Spain.
[On edit] to summarize, Spain lost on Thursday. Events proved that they were no safer after collaborating with Bush policies. Sunday's election was but confirmation.
