in the past 5 days i have read about a half-million posts and articles about whether or not the election of the new socialist government in spain constitutes "appeasement of terrorists." but i wish that those who want to argue that it is at least acknowledge the below facts:
1. the socialist party might have won the election even if the march 11 attacks had not occurred
a poll conducted four days before the attack showed the socialists trailing in the polls by only few percentage points which was well within the margin of error. furthermore, a poll taken on march 10, 2004, the day before the bombing, indicated the socialists were in the lead by 2 percentage points, this was also within the margin of error. (thanks to ntodd for that second link). in other words, the race was a statistical dead heat. we will never know for sure whether the socialist would have won anyway, but, at least commentators should stop referring to it as if it is some kind of upset.
2. outgoing prime minister jose maria aznar was not running in the last election
aznar has been a staunch ally to president bush, a stance which seriously hurt his reelection prospects. several months ago, he decided not to run for reelection, in part, many believed, because he really didn’t stand a chance to win. (he also had several other reason to be unpopular, such as his government’s less than forthright handling of the prestige oil tanker spill off the spanish coast. for a discussion of aznar’s political liabilities and a good summary of the modern history of spanish politics see this article from salon). the fact that the popular party put up a different candidate in the election illustrates just how clearly the spanish public was against supporting the u.s. in iraq before the madrid bombings. the ruling party knew the only way it could be reelected is to distance itself from the policy and the divisive politician who symbolized it.
3. jose luis rodriguez zapatero, the incoming spanish prime minister, is not saying he will end cooperation with the u.s. in the “war on terror”
zapatero has vowed to make anti-terrorism a top priority for his administration. under zapatero, spain will continue to aid american forces in afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. even in iraq, zapatero has not said that he will withdraw spanish forces from there immediately, but rather after june 30, 2004. in a sense, he's only calling the bush administration's bluff when they claim to hand over sovereignty on that date. the date, clearly chosen with the american electoral calendar in mind, is supposed to create the impression that the iraq mission has been accomplished. but if that's the case, what is wrong with spanish troops leaving after iraq "rejoins the community of nations?"
furthermore, zapatero has not said that spain will definitely pull out after june 30. they will stay if they get a u.n. mandate. zapatero is simply playing hardball with the bush administration, trying to get them to rejoin the community of nations if they want foreign help to rebuild the country. you may not agree with the policy or tactic, but that's not necessarily the same as appeasement.
4. zapatero's socialist party is not a communist party
americans cannot keep communists and socialists straight, and thus they are easily confused by the concept of a democratic socialist political party. but the fact is, in virtually every other democratic country, there is a democratic socialist political party. (a few months ago i read this book it didn’t happen here which discusses many of the historical and structural reasons why a democratic socalist party did not take hold in the u.s. when it did everywhere else). the democratic socialists parties go by various names in the various countries, but these days they are mostly on the moderate-left end of the political spectrum. notably, in britain the democratic socialist party is called the "labour party," the party of bush’s buddy tony blair.
if you want to argue that the spanish elections equals appeasement of terrorism, fine. but if you want to make a serious case for it, you have to at least address the above points.
