How Spanish elections may influence future world events
Chaklader Mahboob-ul Alam writes from Madrid

By now, almost everybody knows that the Spanish general elections were held on March 14, 2004. Millions of words have been written trying to explain why against all prognosis, the Socialists were able to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Conservatives, whose leader had run the country for the last eight years with an iron fist. The purpose of this letter is not to mull over them again but to analyse the possible consequences of this surprise victory, whose repercussions are still reverberating all across the pro-Bush camp in the Western world.

Immediately after the election results were announced, Mr. Zapatero, the Socialist leader, who will most probably become Spain's next prime minister, repeated his vow to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq after 30th June, 2004 unless all foreign military forces in Iraq were placed under the control of the United Nations. Spanish participation in the US-led invasion of Iraq was (and still is) a hugely unpopular measure. More than 90 per cent of the Spanish population were against this invasion which they considered as illegal, immoral and unjust. Ignoring the huge majority of public opinion, Mr. Aznar, the conservative prime minister endorsed the invasion because he thought that this action would transform Spain into one of world's great powers. It seems that Mr. Aznar's motto in life is: No matter whether right or wrong, one has to be on the side of the most powerful. Mr. Aznar may also have thought that Spanish participation in the Iraq war on the side of the United States would give him a place in history and that his legacy would be considered as great as that of King Charles I, who consolidated the power of the Spanish empire and then (1555) abdicated the throne . After the abdication he retired to a monastery to meditate.

Although, militarily the withdrawal of Spanish troops (only 1300) will not make a significant difference, from a strategic point of view, it will have a tremendous impact on the morale of the so-called "coalition of the willing ". (Is this a mere coincidence that most of the members of this unholy alliance are Europeans? One may well ask the governments of these predominantly Christian countries -- Britain, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Holland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Lithuania, Slovakia, Moldavia, Estonia etc.: What have the Iraqis done to you? Why are your troops occupying Iraq? Are you not afraid that your action will be perceived in the Muslim world as an example of Western imperialism and thus provoke retaliation?) Bush and his acolytes are afraid that the Spanish withdrawal will have a domino effect on the other members of the coalition and eventually will lead to Bush's defeat in this year's presidential election.

Italy's prime minister Berlusconi is already feeling the pressure. On the first anniversary of the invasion, millions of Italians demonstrated against Italian participation in the occupation forces. More than 67 per cent of the Italians are in favour of the withdrawal of their troops (approximately 3,000) from Iraq. Although Berlusconi is not up for re-election until 2006, elections for the European parliament are due in June, this year. If his party does poorly in these elections, his position will become untenable and he may have to go sooner than expected. After all, his rival in Italian politics is none other than Romano Prodi, the current president of the European Commission. Prodi's grim assessment of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is "the terrorism that this war was supposed to stop is infinitely stronger now than a year ago".

Even the Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski, who until now has been a staunch supporter of the American president recently uttered a few cruel words about the Bush administration. He said, "that they (the Americans) deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride". Although no immediate withdrawal of the Polish contingent is expected, it is quite likely that by the end of the year, Poland will follow the Spanish example. By the way, the Poles are currently in command of the South-central military sector of occupied Iraq.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkanade of the Netherlands, who sent 1300 troops against Dutch public opinion, did so at great political risk. On March 16, after a meeting with Bush at the White House, he was non-committal about leaving his troops in Iraq beyond July, 2004.

Australia's rightist prime minister John Howard, otherwise known as Mr. Bush's "deputy Sheriff" in the Far East is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Bush's military adventures in Asia. He is also expected to face election contest this year. Gradually more and more Australians are asking whether their country's participation in the Iraq war, instead of destroying terrorism, has not made Australia more vulnerable to it. Howard may also come under renewed pressure from public opinion to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

British general elections are going to be held next year. Tony Blair (now popularly known in Britain as Mr. BLIAR), who manipulated facts and figures to take his country to war against the will of at least 50 per cent of the British public may have to pay a price for his lies and end up like Aznar as a defeated and discredited leader. (After all, according to a poll conducted recently by YouGov for Sky News 75 per cent of the British public "believed that Britain's role in the Iraq war had made the country more vulnerable" to terrorist attack.

Finally, George W. Bush, the president of the United States, who invaded Iraq under false pretences and is responsible for the killing of probably tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (no one knows the exact figure), destroyed a country, violated international law and poisoned the international atmosphere (remember, Huntington's theory on clash of civilisations) will also face election contest, this year. Bush's ostensible reason for invading Iraq was to destroy Iraq's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons of this nature were found in Iraq, Bush said that this war was to eradicate terrorism. Even though the American intelligence services have confirmed that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein had no connection with the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Bush administration is still harping on the same flimsy excuse trying to convince American public opinion. According to a poll conducted recently by the non-partisan Pew Research Centre, " one year after the war in Iraq, European distrust of the United States has intensified, ..... anger towards America is still fierce in Muslim countries". In fact, the invasion of Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism all over the world.

Spain and Poland under the leadership of Aznar had aggressively pursued a pro-American policy, which often went against the idea of building a strong European Union as a counter-weight to American hegemony. With the disappearance of Aznar, it would be easier to agree a new constitution for the EU, which until now had been effectively blocked by Spain and Poland. This would definitely give new direction and momentum to the union. Aznar's confrontational attitude had created an unpleasant atmosphere in the EU. Rodriguez Zapatero, the Socialist leader, although does not consider himself as an anti-American is definitely not willing to serve the interests of Bush. He will most certainly be more pro-European than pro-American and repair the damaged relations with France and Germany, who are after all, Spain's natural partners and neighbours.

If accountability is the true essence of democracy then Spain's young democracy has certainly passed the test. We do not know yet whether the older democracies of Britain and the United States will pass the test or not. If they do, the results of the Spanish general elections will have contributed to it.