Government fails to justify its involvement in Iraq

Society could not understand total government’s commitment to the US

BARCELONA - Ricard Gonzalez

February 2004

On the 29th November there a massacre in Iraq shook the whole of Spain. Seven Spaniards, all members of the Spanish Intelligence Agency, were killed in an ambush near Baghdad. Despite the deep grief expressed by the Spanish society, the government did not even introduce a nuance in its stance towards the Iraqi conflict: total commitment to the US strategy.

Ever since George Bush announced its plans to attack Iraq, the Spanish government, along with the British, has been the most loyal to the U.S. Not only did Spain defend the American’s positions within the EU summits, but it was allegedly Aznar’s idea to publish in “The Wall Street Journal” a declaration of support to the US policies.

This declaration was finally signed by eight European presidents and became the public evidence of the deep division on the issue among Europeans. Nowadays, Spain contributes to the occupation of Iraq with 1.300 soldiers.

However, ever since George Bush announced his plans to attack Iraq, the Spanish civil society has showed a strong opposition to it. According to polls, more than 85% of the population was opposed to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. As the war approached, the anti-war mobilization gained momentum, reaching its peak on the 15th of February. That day five million citizens - the highest number in Europe- demonstrated against the war in the streets of the main Spanish cities.

During those weeks, everyday between 22.00 to 22:30, thousands of people in Barcelona protested by knocking on pans from their terraces in order to make sure their demands were heard. But Aznar did not listen to them.

The friendship ties between Spain and the Arab states are, for the least, historic. In fact, Spain was, in 1986, the last European state to recognize Israel. The stance adopted by Aznar is thus very difficult to understand. In fact, there have been a lot of articles in newspapers trying to find an explanation for this decision. What could the U.S. possibly give to Spain in exchange of dividing the EU? Were a few reconstruction contracts enough to come at odds with France, Germany and Arab states?

The explanation probably lays in Aznar’s nationalist ideology, since it has been clearly a personal decision of his.

 Aznar is an extreme Spanish nationalist that dreams of Spain occupying a major role in international politics, just as it did in the XVIII century. Given the fact that the U.S is the only superpower, he believes that the best way to achieve it is to become its best servant.

Besides, the international “war on terror” fits perfectly Aznar’s national agenda. He has always refused any kind of dialogue with the ETA (armed group that fights for the secession of the Basque Country) or with the moderate Basque Nationalist Party. Instead of dealing with the Basques’ demands for more autonomy, he prefers to address this conflict as a mere fight against terrorism.

Fortunately, Aznar is not going for a third mandate in the coming elections of the 14th of March. Thus, the key question, not only in Spain but also in Europe, is whether the next prime minister will keep this transatlantic alignment or not.

Despite the massive anti-war movement, polls give a clear advantage to Rajoy, Aznar’s successor in the Popular Party, over the Socialist candidate. This result can be mainly explained by the weak credibility that the Socialist Party hass in Spain and the pre-eminence of economics over foreign affairs when it comes to voting.

Nonetheless, it is not clear whether Rajoy, once elected and freed from Aznar’s tutelage, will follow his predecessors’ policies. He might be wise enough to know that superpowers do not have friends, only interests. No need to look for examples when addressing a Middle Eastern readership.