Spanish spring

Out goes Aznar. The neocons thought they had won but they hadn't, writes Hassan Nafaa*

---

A year ago, the US launched what will go down as perhaps the most infamous, treacherous war in history. It didn't take long for the deceit to unfold. It is now an accepted fact that the decision to wage war was taken well before 11 September. It is also now taken for granted that 11 September offered this administration the opportunity it had been waiting for. An alarmed and deeply shaken American society could now be manipulated to back an invasion that simultaneously served an overarching strategy for global hegemony.

This strategy, which obsessed neo-conservatives since coming to power under Reagan, evolved gradually, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, into a fully-fledged political enterprise, dominating the agenda of the American ultra right. It naturally followed, when the most extreme spectrum of this camp came to power under Bush Jr, this enterprise would be translated into a detailed programme of action. It awaited only an impetus to enable it to unfold with a seamless ease that exceeded the neoconservatives' wildest dreams.

The fissure that erupted between the hawks and so-called doves inside the Bush administration was not the product of differences over substance but over means, stratagems and tactical priorities. While the hawks, championed by the secretary of defense, felt that 11 September gave Washington leeway to press ahead with neither need for a mandate nor allies, the doves in the State Department believed that it was still possible to capitalise on international sympathy for the US in the wake of 11 September and channel it towards a more rational and less costly management of both the war and its fallout. When it became apparent that Washington's designs lacked the most rudimentary legal and moral justifications, anti-war demonstrations swept the world's major capitals and the pull and tug between the rival camps in the White House intensified. The administration as a whole, sifting through options, remained unswervingly bent on war.

Even until the last moment, Bush continued to maintain that the US was not acting alone; that it was leading a powerful coalition on a noble mission that would only be understood by the rest of the world once accomplished. Once the dust had settled the protestor, waverer and the cowardly would have no alternative but to admit to error and express gratitude for the sacrifices the US had made on the world's behalf. Thus, during the countdown to the outbreak of hostilities, Bush made his way to the Portuguese Azores to meet with his two closest partners, Tony Blair and Josè Maria Aznar, issuing his famous pronouncement that a "New Europe" -- as opposed to a decaying "old" one -- was being born; that the world would soon be very different from before.

To be fair, we must confess that America's rapid military victory in toppling the Saddam regime stunned and confused many. Some began to believe that they had missed the boat, and that they had better make concessions if they were ever to catch up. Meanwhile, "new" Europe began to act as though it had previously unimaginable rights to dictate its whims to the rest. Suddenly, we had a Spanish- Polish alliance, not so discretely backed by the US, doing its utmost to sabotage strenuous efforts to reach a European consensus over a new constitution bill for the EU.

Soon, however, the winds started to blow the other way. It quickly became apparent that America was in Iraq to stay; that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that such evidence as was presented was forged. It was also obvious that although the Iraqi people rejoiced at the fall of Saddam they were less than overjoyed at the presence of the US, which they resisted by all means. Increasingly, the leaders of the "victorious coalition" appeared more like a gang of outlaws than heads of state. They began to sweat under the heat of public scrutiny, which came quicker than anyone expected. There at 10 Downing Street was Blair, Bush's number one buddy, fighting for political survival, no sooner climbing out of the frying pan than he fell into the fire. Even mobster-leader Bush began to squirm under pressure, while his popularity ratings plummeted so drastically that for the first time since 11 September it seemed that the American electorate would not renew his tenure. But, no one expected that the most stinging blow would come from the Iberian Peninsula in an early "Spanish spring".

The majority of the Spanish people long since expressed their opposition to the war and to Aznar's role in it. However, until the recent elections opinion polls indicated that Aznar still stood a strong chance of retaining power. Ballot results proved the polls less than accurate. Although analysts suggest that Aznar's opportunist exploitation of the terrorist bombings that shook Madrid on elections day brought about his downfall, I would suggest that this was only the final straw. There is no reason to doubt that the majority of Spaniards echoed the overwhelming tide of world opinion, whose loathing of Bush's extremist policies in Iraq has been reflected in numerous polls, the most recent of which by the Washington-based PEW Research Center which has specialised in charting the fortunes of America's image since 11 September.

More tangible evidence of the tide that brought Aznar down and Josè Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in was the latter's electoral pledges. The new Spanish president has promised, firstly, that he will withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq unless they are placed under the supervision and control of the UN. Secondly, he declared that he would alter Spain's stance on the European constitution, pledging to work towards a new formula that would further the cause of European integration. Zapatero's dual stance has contributed to further isolating the US administration, whose "victorious" coalition is now in tatters.

It is still too early to tell how Spain's mood will affect Bush and Blair. Increasingly hemmed in, it would not be out of character for Bush to move onto the offensive, opening new military fronts in the Middle Eastern theatre, even if such recklessness would be tantamount to political suicide. Whatever occurs, there is no overestimating the significance of the Spanish people's action. Perhaps the new Spanish government, less in league with the thugs in Washington and more committed to the future of Europe will usher in an eagerly awaited spring after a long, bitterly cold and depressingly bleak American winter. Just maybe, the American people will follow the Spanish people's suit, get rid of that trigger-happy cowboy and open the way to a more rational handling of global crises which the Bush administration has only succeeded in aggravating.

* The author The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.