Once more I find myself writing a post about something I didn’t think I’d need to write a post about, because I thought it was so obvious that everyone would have written about it. But no, so here goes. It’s an observation about the real meaning of the Spanish election result.
I’ve commented elsewhere about the general tone of a lot of comment (particularly in the USA) on the Spanish elections. But reading through Airmiles‘ latest column today, I was struck by the fact that nobody in the USA seems to realise that in at least one important sense, the fact that the Socialists won in Spain is, well, about them.
OK, look at it this way, and in doing so, please be aware that I’m reporting the facts as I see them, not necessarily endorsing any particular point of view. But think about it this way; the reason that the Bush campaign have been going all-out to portray Kerry as the candidate that “Osama wants to win”, is that they know that there is a big section of the population that will, whatever else they believe, seek out the candidate that they think is Osama’s favourite and vote the other way.
So why didn’t the Spanish electorate think the same way, given that they had huge reason to do so? Potentially many reasons, but here’s one that hasn’t received nearly enough airplay; perhaps they did. Perhaps that same tendency which I described in American politics above, found its expression in Spain in the form of a big group of swing voters who decided that they would seek out the candidate who was Bush’s favourite and vote the other way. Is it not at least possible that a big factor in the Spanish elections was anti-Americanism? Anyone who thinks that this is just out of the question, simply hasn’t spent much time in Europe recently.
So why might European voters have such a big thing against America? Well, I don’t know in the sense of having a definite answer, and it’s only a bit of speculation anyway. (I presume that the paragraph which says “I don’t know in the sense of having a definite answer, and it’s only a bit of speculation anyway” is the one that gets cut out of Friedman’s column when he submits it every week, btw). To be honest, good old-fashioned stupidity is likely to be a big part of it; to blame the Americans for everything is a staple of windy old nationalistic bores who don’t like the fact that their country isn’t as important as it used to be, and Europe isn’t exactly short of those. But there are also a number of more substantial reasons.
Here is, in the true Airmiles style, a list of points which might bear thinking about.
- Nobody seems to be getting anything out of this war except the Americans. We British, after
- Being associated with the clown show that is current US diplomacy is not at all good for the soul or the ego. This is a source of my own latent anti-Americanism, which is currently manifesting itself in the form of a deep hatred for Blair. The fact is that, as I see it, one of Britain’s greatest assets over the last two hundred years has been our national reputation for honesty and fair play. When we associate with people whose behaviour toward the rest of the world has been characterised time and again by lying and bullying, and when we seem to be helping them in this enterprise, it rubs off on us. No good will come of it, and it does not feel good.
- It’s wrong to call US foreign policy “unilateralist”. But a lot of rhetoric used by the American government is directed for domestic consumption, and seems to think that it makes America look better by talking down the importance of the rest of the world. The Spanish are not idiots. When they hear France described as “irrelevant”, they know what that implies for them, and they don’t like it. They’re proud people, the Spanish, and they know when they’re being patronised.
I could go on but I won’t. I think that this is a real problem in the world, and it is one that I would categorise as serious (“serious” problems, in my informal system of classification, are those which materially increase the probability of me getting killed). If the population of Europe are prepared to hand out propaganda (and potentially substantive) victories to Al-Quaeda simply out of pique with the USA, then that’s pretty serious.
I think that a lot of analysis would stop at this point, and just use it as an opportunity for another sermon about the moral decrepitude of Old Europe. But I think that’s really the wrong way to look at this. When you get a conflict like this between crowds of people and governments, it’s very rarely the people who are entirely in the wrong. After all, John Kerry is picking up a load of flak for boasting about his endorsements from foreign leaders and guess what? Over here, you lot are foreigners. If Friedman ever happens to stop over in London on the way from one stage-managed encounter with popular opinion to the next, and if I bump into him in the business class lounge in Heathrow, I’ve rehearsed what I’m going to say.
“Look, mate, this isn’t a joke. Your current management are destroying your brand. It’s not that anyone thinks you’re evil. You’re just embarrassing. You’ve set up a global enterprise that so far has provided a global policeman who can’t keep the global peace, a war for oil that left oil at $32/barrel and a WMD operation that doesn’t even have the wit to plant the evidence. Now you’re wandering round the world asking why the USA’s endorsement is electoral poison? For Christ’s sake, tell your leaders to get their act together or elect someone who will. Or, in a very real sense, the terrorists will have won.”
1If anyone made a commemorative plate with an image of the 1997 election count in Putney, I would probably buy it.
{ 58 comments }
Andrew Boucher 03.26.04 at 12:22 pm
Not to mention the American-European divide on:
1/ The death penalty and by extension the use of deadly force to achieve any objective
2/ Socialism vs. capitalism
Bush, by holding the American position to its (logical?) extreme, is therefore reviled by a good subset of Europeans.
jdsm 03.26.04 at 12:27 pm
I asked two Spaniards why they thought the Socialists won and they said it was for two reasons. One was an awareness that the economy was being mismanaged, outside help coming instead of genuine structural reform. The other was the perception that Aznar lied about ETA.
Of course, the first of these ties in with your anti-americanism point that the Spanish percieve Aznar to have gotten lots of money from the US as payback for support. True or not this is a perception. It’s at least less pernicious than outright anti-Americanism though.
It should be noted that I’m aware two grad students don’t have the last word on Spanish motives. I just thought I’d throw it in as a talking point.
dsquared 03.26.04 at 12:32 pm
To be honest, I’ve tended to pick up the view from acquiaintances who know more than me that the election result was only a “surprise” for people who don’t pay much attention to Spanish politics …
JR 03.26.04 at 12:47 pm
I don’t agree with this anti-americanism explanation for the Spanish election. I just don’t take it. Most of the people who voted against Aznar (me included) did it to take him out of office: he just lied and misinformed about the investigations on the 11-M attacks, he and his party treated us arrogantly and as if they had the right to act how they want. And algo because 90% of us were against sending the troops to Irak and the 11-M showed us the direct effects of taking part in these crazy adventures.
Perhaps anti-Republicanism, but not anti-Americanism at all.
America
mc 03.26.04 at 1:07 pm
Is it not at least possible that a big factor in the Spanish elections was anti-Americanism?
And that would the stunningly original concept? Something no one wrote about yet, oh no…
You’re recycliing so many clichés it’s funny you claim you’re saying something unprecedented.
Those Spanish who swung the results voted to oust Aznar’s party because they didn’t like him and his government and his party and how they behaved on a multitude of things – including but not limited to internal politics, media spin, European politics, the Basque issue, the war in Iraq, terrorism and the Madrid attacks.
Simple as that. Is is too hard to accept?
Some of those items do involve current American policies, of course, but that’s not enough to put an “anti-american” label on the results, sorry. Unless you’re arguing that opposing policies of the Bush administration does equal antiamericanism, in which case, you’re making no room for objections at all. Wow.
And I’m saying this as someone who did support the war in Iraq and Bush and Blair and Aznar’s choice in that. But fair is fair. You’ve got to accept there are different opinions. Opposition to that war is not so automatically “antiamerican”, and the results of elections are not a “propaganda victory for Al Qaeda”, except for the propagandists at FOX and NRO and the like.
Honestly, I didn’t expect to find that kind of rhetorics replicated here.
…to blame the Americans for everything is a staple of windy old nationalistic bores who don’t like the fact that their country isn’t as important as it used to be, and Europe isn’t exactly short of those.
I’ll let you in on a well-guarded secret: voters in Spain as in the rest of Europe generally don’t give a toss about the ‘importance’ of their country. They’re not a superpower and don’t aspire to be. The Spanish electorate went to vote about Spanish politics with Spanish views that are not identical to American ones, in all their different decliations. Is that too hard to accept too?
Steve Carr 03.26.04 at 1:29 pm
Citizens in Europe generally don’t care about the “importance” of whatever country they’re from? I think the history of the twentieth century would look pretty damn different if that were really true.
Steve Carr 03.26.04 at 1:34 pm
Daniel, I realize it’s obvious, but I actually think “over here, you lot are foreigners” is a very important point, too, and one that American voters and, even more amazingly, American politicians almost never think about. Friedman should crib your idea and write about it.
Maria 03.26.04 at 1:42 pm
What amazes me is how anyone can presume to know which horse Al Qaeda would back in any given election – assuming they even have a unified preference.
Seems to me AQ would like to see Bush win, because he (a) has just prosecuted a war that didn’t go anywhere near AQ turf, or got there when they’d already left, and (b)does nothing to help sort out the Arab Israeli conflict or his friends in Saudi Arabia, meaning AQ’s raison d’etre continues indefinitely and (c) shares an identical apocalyptic world view with Osama – that this is a mythical battle between good and evil – that will help perpetuate the conflict for years to come. Yes, AQ are distinctly the bad guys, but coming over all Biblical plays into their hands.
Then again, that’s presuming AQ is a united and driven organisation with a preference in each and every western election. Which is kind of a silly thing to do…
Also, this ‘sending a message’ bs drives me crazy. If the rise of AQ has taught us anything, it’s that the message ‘we’ think we’re sending and the message ‘they’ are receiving are not at all the same.
mc 03.26.04 at 1:43 pm
Steve: no silly misreadings, please. We’re talking the present, not the nazis, right? Ok. So, in today’s world, _not expecting your country to be a superpower or empire_ is not equal to not caring about the role of your country. Just like having national interests is not equal to nationalism.
Daniel’s phrase was:
“… old nationalistic bores who don’t like the fact that their country isn’t as important as it used to be…”
– I just don’t see where that kind of nationalism is. It’s gone, old farts, exactly. I don’t see how the Socialist victory can be connected to that mindset at all. Plus, it’s kind of ironic to attribute it to Spain of all places, where people lived under a fascist dictatorship, just recently. Otherwise, someone please explain to me how the Socialist winning could be read as a sign of nostalgia for right-wing despotism? It boggles the mind, really.
Maria 03.26.04 at 1:43 pm
What amazes me is how anyone can presume to know which horse Al Qaeda would back in any given election – assuming they even have a unified preference.
Seems to me AQ would like to see Bush win, because he (a) has just prosecuted a war that didn’t go anywhere near AQ turf, or got there when they’d already left, and (b)does nothing to help sort out the Arab Israeli conflict or his friends in Saudi Arabia, meaning AQ’s raison d’etre continues indefinitely and (c) shares an identical apocalyptic world view with Osama – that this is a mythical battle between good and evil – that will help perpetuate the conflict for years to come. Yes, AQ are distinctly the bad guys, but coming over all Biblical plays into their hands.
Then again, that’s presuming AQ is a united and driven organisation with a preference in each and every western election. Which is kind of a silly thing to do…
Also, this ‘sending a message’ bs drives me crazy. If the rise of AQ has taught us anything, it’s that the message ‘we’ think we’re sending and the message ‘they’ are receiving are not at all the same.
dsquared 03.26.04 at 1:49 pm
MC: I’ll admit that my Spanish acquaintances aren’t a cross section (shall we say that the single letter “y” makes more appearances in their names than the median), but they certainly do care about the importance of Spain in the world. The whole “New Europe/Old Europe” theme was very important to them for precisely this reason. But as I say in the piece, I don’t want to misrepresent this piece of speculation for information.
Maria: I think that after years of observation of Ireland and Palestine, plus ETA, etc, etc, we can surmise that terrorists always want the hardest-line and most reactionary element of the other side in power, unless they believe that there is the possibility of a genuine compromise.
des 03.26.04 at 1:54 pm
Seems to me AQ would like to see Bush win […]
Did the “al-Qaeda wuvs Georgie-Poo!” kerfuffle really not make the Anglosphere at all?
(It was in Le Monde last week.)
mc 03.26.04 at 1:56 pm
Also, this ‘sending a message’ bs drives me crazy. If the rise of AQ has taught us anything, it’s that the message ‘we’ think we’re sending and the message ‘they’ are receiving are not at all the same.
Exactly…
That apocalyptic terror message is well outside of the realm of politics and elections and the left-wing/right-wing divide.
How many among those killed in Madrid had voted for Aznar in previous elections? How many for the Socialists? How many opposed the war in Iraq? How many were approving it? Does it even matter? They’re all dead. That’s a rather radical way of levelling political differences.
Trying to fit terrorism into political schemes is a dangerous trap terrorists themselves set up. It’s depressing to see how many fall for it.
mc 03.26.04 at 2:08 pm
dsquared: ok, but caring about a Spanish ‘role’ is natural, insofar as it relates to your own country’s interests in participating in international alliances, tasks, etc – you know, its foreign policy. It’s only normal. It can’t be disaparaged in itself.
What I object to is that correlation of normal national interests ANY country has with “old nationalistic bores”, or ambitions of “grandeur”, or nostalgia for past empire eras, or a knee-jerk reaction in exclusively anti-american terms. The French may have more of that attitude (even if that’s also largely a cliché), but the Spanish? Not one bit…
I’m sorry if I sounded so aggressive, but I really find all these America-centric and AQ-victory readings of the Spanish elections very poor. They totally miss the point, and evade a lot of facts.
Plus, given your last paragraphs and your elsewhere comment, I have to wonder about the consistency in your arguments.
BigMacAttack 03.26.04 at 2:34 pm
I have no opinion on the Spanish elections.
But I do have an opinion on Nationalism and anti-Americanism.
Here we have a well eduacted intelligent man who could actually write both of the following quotes –
‘To be honest, good old-fashioned stupidity is likely to be a big part of it; to blame the Americans for everything is a staple of windy old nationalistic bores who don’t like the fact that their country isn’t as important as it used to be, and Europe isn’t exactly short of those. But there are also a number of more substantial reasons.’
‘Being associated with the clown show that is current US diplomacy is not at all good for the soul or the ego. This is a source of my own latent anti-Americanism, which is currently manifesting itself in the form of a deep hatred for Blair. The fact is that, as I see it, one of Britain’s greatest assets over the last two hundred years has been our national reputation for honesty and fair play. When we associate with people whose behaviour toward the rest of the world has been characterised time and again by lying and bullying, and when we seem to be helping them in this enterprise, it rubs off on us. No good will come of it, and it does not feel good.’
News flash –
200 years of honesty and fair play isn’t what created the largest empire the world has ever known. The sub-continent didn’t up and decide to join the empire because it was imrpessed with British honesty and fair play.
The only people who could write such tripe are ‘old nationalistic bores’.
zaoem 03.26.04 at 2:44 pm
All this sounds reasonable except for the empirical fact that the conservatives were ahead by a landslide in the polls just before the terrorist attacks. It thus appears that the attacks indeed had more to do with the election results than you give them credit for.
Kalli 03.26.04 at 2:53 pm
As an American, yes I will admit to it (shamed though I may be), I agree that the current administration is not very good for our image. Please be aware that in spite of a few misguided individuals, we are mostly a nice group of people. Bush LOST the popular vote for instance. Some of us are working to get him out office and replace him with something we can be proud of again.
I do very much agree that the attitudes expressed by the Bush administration both at home and abroad are deplorable. I’ve been appalled at some of the comments I have heard my fellow country persons make at times. And frankly I can’t understand where this belligerence and arrogance comes from. I can only be glad that those attitudes seem to be in the hands of a very small but vocal minority. However, if Bush gets elected this November, I’m either emigrating or joining the armed rebellion to take back my country.
Matthew 03.26.04 at 3:01 pm
And also because 90% of us were against sending the troops to Irak
It’s funny how that little detail gets forgotten in all the tedious discussions on that election. From my spanish acquaintances that was a major sticking point. When your government plays second fiddle to a war policy that has zero popular support like this, then this creates resentment and also “anti-Americanism” (ie: Bush is a warmongering fool etc). The attacks just put things in an even starker perspective, but I think that the Aznar gov was going to pay for its decisions anyhow. I think that is the “obvious” thing you should be talking about Daniel.
In England the anti-war sentiment was (strangely?) less unanimous, and we are spineless when it comes to bringing our politicians to account.
Matthew 03.26.04 at 3:04 pm
the empirical fact that the conservatives were ahead by a landslide in the polls
Actually Zoella, that isn’t exactly true. And anyway polls are often misleading.
Zizka 03.26.04 at 3:18 pm
My theory of all this is that the Spaniards (and perhaps the Poles) are relatively new to democracy and thus overenthusiastic, and haven’t picked up yet the sophisticated neocon theory that lying to the electorate is not only excusible but really an obligation.
In my ethnocentric way I have found the real significance of the election in David Brooks’ passing suggestion that the Spanish election should just have been postponed. An American scenario for that isn’t too hard to imagine.
At my URL.
Kevin Brennan 03.26.04 at 3:18 pm
Zaoem,
It is not an “empirical fact” that the PP were ahead in the polls, let alone by a landslide. Most polls showed the PP leading but not by much, and there were some polls that showed the Socialists winning. In short, the election results were well within the range of possibilities predicted by polling. Opinion polls are not 100% accurate, and they’ve been off by more than this amount in other elections.
A lot of the U.S. commentary on the election also neglects to point out that the 2000 election was anomalous. Due to scandals affecting the Socialists, about a third of their supporters stayed home and chose not to vote. The Socialists got about the same number of votes in 2004 as they did in 1996.
We simply do not know if voters really changed their minds as a result of the bombing.
Nasi Lemak 03.26.04 at 3:25 pm
I do hope the “national reputation for honesty and fair play” line was a joke. Otherwise, you know, it sounds a bit… oblivious? blithely nationalistic? even, dare one suggest, American?
Patrick 03.26.04 at 3:48 pm
The fact of the matter is that America is acting in many ways like Britain during the late 1800s and early 1900s, like the French before that, like the Spanish before that, like the Romans before that, like the Greeks before that, like the Persians before that, like the Egyptians before that. And all these examples are all focused on just a little part of the globe. We can just as easily take examples of the previous dominant powers from the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
America is acting like a dominant power. Maybe it shouldn’t and its long-term interest would be to avoid the appearance of bullying, but Britain’s long-term interest would have included avoiding war with Germany in the 1910s. But we have to put “American Primacy in Perspective”, if you will:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.htm
dsquared 03.26.04 at 3:58 pm
I’m a nationalist, and have said so on a couple of CT posts in the past. The UK has not been honest in the past, nor has it played fair. But it has developed a reputation for doing so, largely because we usually honour treaty obligations even when inconvenient, and because we have a state-owned broadcaster that spends its time attacking the state.
I must say that I heartily deplore the British national tendency to think that it makes us look good if we criticise other nations. I think that the Americans learned it from us.
don freeman 03.26.04 at 3:58 pm
I was in Spain the day after the bombings, and my impression, based on the reportage in the Spanish newspapers and conversations with the “man on the street,” is that many people were outraged at the quick attribution of the bombings by the PP to the ETA, despite the lack of any evidence and despite very different modus operandi for prior ETA bombings (the ETA normally targets the military, police, judges, and so on. Rarely innocent civilians, except as bystanders.) The PP lost because they were dishonest. We only hope that the American people can see through the dishonesty of the Bush administration without paying as high a cost as the Spanish.
Keith M Ellis 03.26.04 at 4:45 pm
I have to agree with MC here in that a USA-centric analysis of the Spanish election is likely false and, um, a little offensive.
I don’t think it was an indictment of Aznar’s economic policies nor an endorsement of the Socialists’. Economic conditions have improved in Spain, and my impression is that there’s general satisfaction with that.
The real issue was Aznar involving Spain in the Iraq war dramatically against the popular will, that the Al Qaeda bombing was a stunning example of “chickens coming home to roost”, and that the PP (legitimately or no) clung to an ETA connection to the bombing. That translated into a huge and unexpected voter turnout with people strongly registering their displeasure with the Aznar government.
You don’t need to look for broader themes here.
Keith M Ellis 03.26.04 at 5:14 pm
I have to disagree with this in a number of ways but not, I think, in the sense in which you were most emphatic.
The Spanish election wasn’t about a “message” being sent to Al Qaeda. It was about a message being sent to the PP.
However, in the wider sense, I don’t think terrorism can be anything other than a form of communication and, as a result, any response to it is implicitly and probably should be communication. Terrorism in its strategy is primarily emotional and not practical. A terrorist is always trying to send a message. And then they “listen” for a response.
The people that seem to feel the most strongly about this are the people that seem to have the most dogmatic responses to the problem of terrorism. Indeed, it seems to me that concentrating overmuch about whether or not a message is being sent to a terrorist is counter-productive, it limits one’s options. That is to say, ignoring the reality that one’s response sends a message is as limiting as focusing exclusively on the message.
A government and its people that are attacked by terrorists have a much different set of interests than does the terrorist. Where those interests coincide, care in communication will be productive. Where those interests are distinct, communication is irrelevant.
mc 03.26.04 at 5:19 pm
“anti-Americanism†(ie: Bush is a warmongering fool etc).
Here we go again. That’s not “anti-Americanism”. That’s just considering Bush a warmongering fool. I don’t particularly see it like that myself, though I’m less and less sure of what to think of Bush lately, so I live happily ignoring the question. I’m not American and don’t have to vote there, so, it’s not my problem. But you know, even if I was the most enthusiastic Bush supporter, I’d be rightly told to piss off if I called people anti-american just cos they’re anti-Bush.
Antiamericanism is blanket statements and stupid generalisations about all of America and all Americans. When the target of your dislike is one man, one government, one party, one political view, that’s not a blanket statement, that’s _an opinion that happens to be different to that particular political view_. Like, wow, democracy, what an idea. Works the same way for both non-Americans and Americans who dislike Bush & co. Of which there seems to be plenty.
Now, I’ve never heard those who hated Clinton being labeled as antiamerican, or antipatriotic. How odd.
—
News flash –
200 years of honesty and fair play isn’t what created the largest empire the world has ever known. The sub-continent didn’t up and decide to join the empire because it was imrpessed with British honesty and fair play.
Well, come on, you’re underestimating the irresistible appeal of colonial chic. Merchant/Ivory, dude…
—
My theory of all this is that the Spaniards (and perhaps the Poles) are relatively new to democracy and thus overenthusiastic, and haven’t picked up yet the sophisticated neocon theory that lying to the electorate is not only excusible but really an obligation.
Yes! absolutely, you nailed it right on the spot…
It’s amazing how the people who keep on with that “victory for Al Qaeda” mantra keep ignoring that little part of the story where Aznar pisses off ALL of Spain in one go and stabs himself in the foot by throwing away what little advantage he had… If he had still been running as PP leader, no way the PP would have still gotten that 38% of the vote. That 38% against 42%. That 4% difference which was more or less what polls had predicted all along, some attributing the advantage to the Socialists, some to the PP.
If 2 to 4% is a “landslide”, what can we call a 10% or 20% difference? Nuclear fallout?
Jack 03.26.04 at 6:07 pm
Surely there was higher turnout which traditionally favours the socialists who turned off their voters for sleaze rather than policy reasons, plus anger at the blame ETA chicanery plus reminding people that their government went to war against the wishes of even its supporters.
There is room for direct anti americanism but after those straightforward considerations we must be talking about a marginal effect.
Decnavda 03.26.04 at 6:56 pm
“The UK has not been honest in the past, nor has it played fair. But it has developed a reputation for doing so…”
Ha, ha, ha!
I have acquired a number of Indian freinds and relatives, and their comments about the British don’t strike me recognizing any sort of reputation for honesty or fairness. The one Scottish person I met didn’t seem to think so either. (Well, he might have been refering to the “English”, but I suspect he would have brisled at being called “British”.) Do the Irish recognise this rep? The French? Yeah, I’m sure everyone YOU talk to thinks the British have had this rep for the past 200 years. Just like everyone I talk to think America has that rep now.
Okay, that last sentence was a lie. I live in San Francisco. But my point stands.
Jeffrey Bogdan 03.26.04 at 7:02 pm
Here’s how the Spanish vote happened. Going back to to the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, Spanish public opinion is overwhelmingly against it because, among other reasons, they knew they were being lied to about the evidence for WMD, about the supposed connection between 9-11 and Iraq, and about the proposition that invading Iraq was going to weaken the forces of terrorism.
In the interim, the normal–dismal but normal–process common to all advanced capaitalist democracies takes over. The memory of 9-11, of all the lies, fades. The economy is doing no too badly. No one really knows what the Socialists’ economic policies are going to be because they’ve been out of power so long peole stopped paying attention.
Boom!Madrid! Suddenly reminded about terrorism, about how they were lied to. Suddenly the proposition offered by opponents of Spain’s participation in the “alliance” that supporting the U.S. invasion was not just irrelevant to fighting terrorism but would increase the danger and power of terrorism is dramatically confirmed. Not only that, it turns out that the the government lied again.
So now the Spaniards can be absolutely certain that the people running things are both fools and knaves. Whether they are more stupid than wicked or more wicked than stupid seems to be the only relevant question. What’s anti-Americanism got to do with it?
Very silly post, Daniel. This is supposed to be the professorial blog? Now I’m sure I made the right decision not to go for that doctorate.
wtb 03.26.04 at 7:13 pm
Daniel: “It’s an observation about the real meaning of the Spanish election result.”
The Spanish voters “said” more than one thing when they rejected Aznar. You can see it as rejection of a pro-US party and its policies and you’d be right. Or you can see it as a failure of nerve and you’d be right, too.
What’s striking is the way that one’s political convictions determine which alternative one takes to be the “real” or most significant meaning of the event.
It’s clear that the election benefited AQ, but some on the left find the rejection of a right wing, pro-US government so praiseworthy that they deny or trivialize AQ’s victory. On the other hand, some on the right find it more interesting than important that Spanish voters were willing to “to hand out propaganda (and potentially substantive) victories to Al-Quaeda simply out of pique with the USA”.
Both ignore important meanings in the Spanish election, but the leftish commentators seem to be furthest removed from reality. To deny or trivialize the fact that AQ won one in Madrid is act of grossest partisanship. The right is at least correct in its judgment that AQ had a victory in Madrid, even if it ignores other meanings in its rush to accuse Spain of political immaturity and cowardice.
The spectacle should be instructive for partisans of both sides but sadly it only seems to deepen their prejudices.
Your post is the most sensible one on this subject I’ve yet seen on CT.
mischa 03.26.04 at 7:14 pm
re: Al-Qaeda endorsement of Bush
Link to AP story in English:
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPAIN_AL_QAIDA?SITE=WAOLY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This ran in the Kansas City Tribune and I believe the Chicago Sun, among other papers.
Matthew 03.26.04 at 7:44 pm
That?s not ?anti-Americanism?.
Sorry for the short-cut MC: I am the first to dissociate anti-Bushism with anti-USA; but in the context of Daniel’s post (“So why might European voters have such a big thing against America?”) ie a discussion on Europe-wide trends it seemed clear to me (I did allude to what I meant as well).
We’re talking about an undeniable Europe-wide trend. Also I think it’s comparable with the levels of uninformed Francophobia in the USA. Sadly it will spill over to a general resentments of Americans in general if this goes on.
Sebastian Holsclaw 03.26.04 at 7:50 pm
War for oil failed because iwe have $32 per barrel?
Hello. Maybe that is because it wasn’t a war for oil! Sheesh.
I fully accept that here I will be subjected to the idea that changes have to be made, and of course the US must do all the changes. But what the hell do you want anyway? Would it really have been better to pretend Afghanistan was the whole war on terror? No European leader has ‘led’ us to the next logical step.
If you don’t want to be thought of as relevant, actually bother to do relevant things. And if you stupidly think that the war on terror is really about Israel, how about using your amazing relevance with the Palestinians to get them to stop bombing restaurants. Or is the ‘good will’ Europe has gained with Palestine worthless? As if that isn’t a question that answers itself.
mc 03.26.04 at 7:50 pm
matthew: sorry, sorry… I only realised later you were using that as a short-cut. :)
…will read more carefully next time…
So, just consider my rant addressed *not* to you, but to everyone who actually subscribes to that equation and means it literally.
– And yes, I know, there is real anti-americanism in Europe, I just was pointing out, like you, that it’s not a given that anyone who is against Bush is necessarily antiamerican.
(I don’t think it leads or will lead to resentment against Americans though.)
Nasi Lemak 03.26.04 at 7:53 pm
Emphasis on blithe rather than nationalistic. I honestly think that “perfidious albion” is nowadays at least as strong a part of British (well, OK, English) self-identity as is the notion that we’re rule-following decent chaps, walk when we know we’re lbw without waiting for the umpire’s decision, only country that actually implements EU law, etc etc.
Greg Hunter 03.26.04 at 8:22 pm
It was definitely about Oil, but to say the UK did not get anything, UH. What the hell is Tony (it’s not about the oil) Blair doing in Libya? Ensuring that Royal Dutch Petroleum gets a deal, nah, that cannot be, because it’s not about the oil. BS.
mc 03.26.04 at 8:45 pm
It’s clear that the election benefited AQ, but some on the left find the rejection of a right wing, pro-US government so praiseworthy that they deny or trivialize AQ’s victory
Sorry but I don’t fit in any of your boxes. As far as I’m concerned I don’t find it praiseworthy actually, I don’t like Zapateros, he used electoral tricks too with his “UN by June 30 or withdrawal” announcement trick, I don’t trust him either, just like I didn’t trust Aznar. I don’t know who I’d have voted for if I’d been there, it’s impossible for me to say.
But I did and still do think the war in Iraq was essentially a good decision (even if the case involved a series of bad-to-worse-to-catastrophic political approaches…). I don’t see Bush as a warmongering fool. I don’t fully trust or like him, but I don’t think all he did was crap either. I have more liking and respect for Ariel Sharon, and I’m not kidding. Which I suppose is enough to lose me the “left wing” label even if I’m left wing in most everything else.
But nevermind left/right blah blah, I can’t stand rhetorical propaganda that disregards _facts_, whichever side it comes from. To claim the results were a victory for Al Qaeda you have to _ignore_ not just the actual figures of polls and elections and then that little Aznar fuckup and the whole context of Spanish politics and why many people already disliked Aznar and his party, and that’s a lot already, but also the fact that there will be _no Spanish troops withdrawal_ because Zapatero played on the fact the by June 30 the UN (and NATO) will in Iraq there anyway.
That’s a bit too many extremely *relevant* facts to ignore.
I don’t care for left wing or right wing labels. When it’s bullshit, it’s bullshit. It knows no political divides.
Where’s the fucking “advantage for Al Qaeda”? Where?
Nowhere, except in all these hysterical visions that “Al Qaeda” won just because Aznar’s party got out of government after 8 years. In other words, just because democracy worked _as usual_… the terrorist won. That makes about as much sense as Osama’s tapes.
This has been discussed over and over already in previous posts here. And the other big point people with your view always fail to answer is: how do you know the Socialists would not have won even without the attacks?
There was such only a minuscule 4% difference in the end… the PP still got 38%, for gosh’s sake. Is losing by 4% a victory for… terrorists? Please.
I mean, it’s so stunning that anyone could disregard all that and then say others are being blind. Some nerve.
Terrorists do not run in elections. That’s a view that’s already been infected by extremism, to decry your democratic opponents as terrorist supporters. It’s the point where far left meets far right and all go join the terrorists and fundamentalists in some propaganda hell where everything that doesn’t agree with you is evil incarnate.
At least, admit that, to American media and politicians and commentators going on about the Al Qaeda victory, all that talk about Spanish elections is essentially about the Bush/Kerry challenge. The main tenet of the most propagandist Bush supporters resting on that ‘vote for Kerry-vote for terrorists’ axiom, so, they’re using the Spanish elections to reinforce that. That’s why they disregard so many facts _about Spain and those Spanish elections_. Cos it’s not about Spain, it’s about the Presidentials.
…and it’s only the beginning, oh what other great debates await us…
wtb 03.26.04 at 9:26 pm
MC: Well, I did say SOME on the right and the left.
“Where’s the fucking “advantage for Al Qaedaâ€? Where?
“Nowhere, except in all these hysterical visions that “Al Qaeda†won just because Aznar’s party got out of government after 8 years. In other words, just because democracy worked as usual… the terrorist won. That makes about as much sense as Osama’s tapes.”
The point I’ve tried to make in earlier posts is that while we make hay out of what the Spanish election “really” means, AQ is celebrating a victory. If it turns out to be the case that Spanish voters ousted Aznar because they couldn’t put up with his cornball 70s moustache instead of disgust with his pro-US policies, so what? AQ still THINKS they scared Spain into voting for a candidate who’s relatively unfriendly to the US and the invasion of Iraq. One can dispute the truth of that statement, but if it’s true, one can’t trivialize it. Because if AQ thinks they can influence elections like that, they’re likely to try it again.
Moreover, I don’t see how one can conclude that AQ sees no advantage in Zapatero’s election when they aimed to bring out Aznar’s loss. If you’re going to dispute that AQ got a boost from the election, the burden of proof is on you to show that AQ is indifferent to Aznar’s loss.
Antoni Jaume 03.26.04 at 10:15 pm
wtb, we Spaniards do not care about your opinion which have the sane value as the one of any member of Al qa’ida. This organisation would have attempted against Spain no matter what. They never put a claim on Spanish politics. I doubt that many Spaniards cared about AQ, I did not myself. As to the militaristic adventures of the USA they are not in our benefit, on the contrary they have spurred the minority of Muslims that dislike our way of life, and that is a direct menace to us in Spain, because they do not need to be a member of AQ, nor any special organisation to do harm.
DSW
wtb 03.26.04 at 10:47 pm
As far as I know, AQ claimed that the Madrid bombing was retribution for Spain’s involvement in Iraq. So, you’re right to say that my opinion and that of AQ have the same value. Both I and AQ are correct in our opinion that AQ attacked Spain for their role in Iraq.
My post had nothing to do with the merits of American militaristic adventuring. I was concerned to establish that AQ benefited from the bombing, not to reveal the motives of Spanish voters. The point is, AQ benefited regardless of the motives of the Spanish electorate.
lago 03.26.04 at 11:56 pm
With regard to your Friedman elevator pitch, is it entirely fair to characterize your conceptions of US policy as the actual goals of US policy? For example, you’re saying that the war on Iraq is a war for oil, and that the failure of oil prices to drop demonstrates US incompetence. Is it not possible that the failure of oil prices to fall may mean that the war wasn’t really about oil in the first place? The same criticism can be leveled at your two other points as well.
Keith M Ellis 03.27.04 at 12:40 am
I’m disapointed that Daniel thinks the Iraq war(s) were about oil. That’s just stupid and ignorant.
It seems so worldly, though.
Hmm, if you really want to be cynical, then you might consider that BushCo’s interests are strongly connected to domestic US oil production which benefits from high oil prices. So maybe on that basis, the war was a success? On the other hand, many other powerful interests in the US, and the US in general, are hurt by high oil prices. So maybe it was a failure? Gosh darn it, it seems that the Bush admin’s interests regarding oil prices are ambiguous. On the other hand, what with the neocon grand strategy, the “unfinished business” from the first Gulf War, personal history, and that probably someone in the administration was stupid enough to actually believe that Iraq really was a WMD threat to the US…well, those are some pretty compelling motives for a war. Obvious and well-known. But…no. Really, it all must be about oil, huh? Please.
belaborer 03.27.04 at 1:01 am
Daniel said: “I was struck by the fact that nobody in the USA seems to realise that in at least one important sense, the fact that the Socialists won in Spain is, well, about them.”
To me, DD saying that Aznar’s close ties to the US might have caused a significant level of disapproval is not a claim that anti-americanism was the most important reason for the socialist victory. Just an underexamined, contributing factor. He said “here’s one that hasn’t received nearly enough airplay”.
And while it’s probably hard to seperate opinion on “strategies for fighting the War on Terror” from opinions about Bush or America (since Bush has made it “his” or America’s fight – you’re either with us or against us), I do think that anti-americanism could have played a part.
Isn’t the prevailing view that Aznar dragged a country, 90% opposed to the Iraq war, at the behest of Bush? He wouldn’t have done it otherwise, no?
Wasn’t the turnout for the elections in Spain much higher than normal? High turnouts favor lefties, no? Lefties are more likely to have anti-american views, too. While it is also hard to separate leftish economic opinions from opinions of America* (with its market advocacy), I think the effects are likely distinct and individually significant.
* I think this points out a larger correlation between views of “justice” as naturally occurring (in a might-makes-right sense) in economics or foreign relations vs. more egalitarian beliefs which assert a minimum, inviolable level of power for individuals, rather than as aggregations of dollars or as citizens under an army’s flag. Why else the strong correlation, in the US, between market purists and hardline military ideology? Shouldn’t they be unrelated? (ignoring the anomalous libertarians and their overrepresentation hereabouts). Why do neo-liberals on economic issues tend to take Israel’s side, while social democrats tend to side with the Palestinians? I don’t see an obvious causal mechanism to explain the correlation, other than a sense of winner-take-all vs. sticking up for the underdog.
Rajeev Advani 03.27.04 at 3:17 am
Daniel, I must say you’re quite skilled at writing posts that unite people who normally disagree with another, just from perusing this comment thread.
Why oh why did you insert the “war for oil” tidbit? Are you being facetious, or do you really think a rise in the short-term price of oil constitutes a failure of US foreign policy?
And to my knowledge Bush has not been talking down the importance of the rest of the world. He talks up the importance of America in standard patriotic form, but he never fails to mention the coalition when describing the situation in Iraq. He even spent more time engaging the UN than previous presidents.
What Bush does talk down is the need to get a so-called “permission slip” from the rest of the world to secure America. I don’t agree with the rhetoric, but the point sticks in light of the fact that whole segments of Europe could write off the invasion of a fascist state as a malevolent “oil grab” without realizing that even if the oil grab nonsense were true the effect would benefit both the Iraqis and world peace.
By my interpretation what frustrates the rest of the world is not the distortionary criticism that America “talks them down.” What frustrates them is simply the fact that they can’t veto America’s actions. When the giant moves the world feels the tremors, and that veto power is something they justifiably desire. But it will never come, and so frustration is built into the system.
BadTux 03.27.04 at 7:54 am
It’s not that anyone thinks you’re evil. You’re just embarrassing. You’ve set up a global enterprise that so far has provided a global policeman who can’t keep the global peace, a war for oil that left oil at $32/barrel and a WMD operation that doesn’t even have the wit to plant the evidence.
Indeed, the last is why I think the Bushies really DID believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Given that a high school Physics education and about 20 hours of browsing pages along the lines of “Nuclear Weapons for Dummies” on the Web were enough to convince me that the Bushies were blowing smoke when they were talking about “the smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud” (Iraq didn’t even have the industrial infrastructure to replicate America of 1944, his infrastructure was stuck in the 1920’s, and we spent a sizable percentage of our GNP refining sufficient U-235 for a single bomb), it is absolutely astounding that nobody in the Bush administration was willing to ask real scientists (as vs. ideologues) for their own opinion.
Embarassing. Utterly embarassing.
mc 03.27.04 at 8:57 am
MC: Well, I did say SOME on the right and the left.
Ah yes, wtb – but you simply discarded that there could be other views, other interpretations apart from those you classified as left or right, and most of all, that you have to consider the actual facts, not start from so many assumptions on what Al Qaeda thinks, what the Spanish think, etc.
Projecting onto the Spanish the typical arguments used in the US Presidential campaign is wrong. It prevents you from seeing things as they really went. Which is exactly what propagandists want.
The point I’ve tried to make in earlier posts is that while we make hay out of what the Spanish election “really†means, AQ is celebrating a victory. If it turns out to be the case that Spanish voters ousted Aznar because they couldn’t put up with his cornball 70s moustache instead of disgust with his pro-US policies, so what?
The explanations of why Aznar lost neither the moustache nor the pro-US policies alone. Amazing how you still manage to dodge the main reason that swung the vote against Aznar, ie. electoral spin over a terrorist attack. And then a lot of other reasons which, _if you actually cared about understanding the results of the Spanish elections_ before blabbing on about it, instead of having Al Qaeda tell you their reading, you would bother to consider.
Good for you if you trust Al Qaeda to be the source of political interpretations of elections in a foreign country.
AQ still THINKS they scared Spain into voting for a candidate who’s relatively unfriendly to the US and the invasion of Iraq. One can dispute the truth of that statement, but if it’s true, one can’t trivialize it. Because if AQ thinks they can influence elections like that, they’re likely to try it again.
So what? Al Qaeda also thinks the Spanish have to pay for fighting against Muslims centuries ago. Al Qaeda also thinks Americans are the devil. Al Qaeda also think of themselves as liberators and fighters for a good cause. Al Qaeda also thinks that Jews are to be eliminated from this planet. Need I go on?
Why on earth should we expect or project rational behaviour on terrorists? When they’re not even being half as rational (in motives) as the IRA or ETA? When, and this is the point, they do strike anyway, regardless of who’s at the government?
Israel has been attacked by terrorists all along for years, no matter who was winning elections. Terrorists are targeting France too, and by your reasoning, they shouldn’t, right?
9/11 was plotted while Clinton was in government. Not Bush. Do you seriously expect Spain will not be targeted anymore now that Aznar is out?
Do you realise trying to “calculate” one’s – a government’s, an entire nation’s – _political_ behaviour based on what the most fanatical breed of terrorists would do or read into it or expect is… absolute madness? It’s already capitulation to terrorism. You give up the framework of reasoning of a democracy because terrorists want to overthrow it. So a result that was always going to be one of two options in those elections becomes a tragedy of surrender, when it’s the _reading_ of it as such that is, at the level of concepts of democracy at least.
Why not simply observe the facts as they are instead? _There will be no withdrawal of Spanish troops_. Spain is part of NATO and there will be some sort of arrangement in Iraq in the next months that enlarges the coalition to include NATO and the UN. ie. What even Zapatero was asking, he’d already got it! and he knew, that’s why he could pull of that sly announcement trick. So no one is pulling out of Iraq. This is fact. How Al Qaeda reads into it or into Zapatero’s rhetorical trick is not our concern, it cannot be. What needs to be done is fight terrorism anyway – but the main means are not political, because you can’t negotiate with these people.
It’s simply inacceptable that anyone – terrorists or their propagandists counterpart – should demand that there’s only one “right” electoral result, and that an entire part of the political arena is equal to terrorist supporters.
Who says Aznar is the only man in Spain willing to fight terrorism? Who says that opposition to the war in Iraq was the only way to fight terrorism? I told you, I myself belong to the camp that thought it was a right thing to do, but I’m so sick of that kind of propaganda it makes me want to become anti-war just out of spite.
Spain still has its intelligence services. Spain still has its police. Spain still has its army. Spain still has a Parliament. Spain still is part of NATO and the EU. Spain is still a US ally. None of that went destroyed, in the Madrid bombings or in the elections.
Just like, even if Kerry wins, America will remain a Republic, with a Congress, where things will get voted and discussed and approved. The CIA will still be there. So will the FBI. So will the Pentagon. And America will remain “the Great Satan” to Islamist terrorists.
But some would have you believe all those things will magically disappear only because of the natural processes of democracy, by which one or the other of two big parties or coalition can normally win, and normally alternate in government.
That’s a pretty big achievement for terrorists, indeed, to have smashed the workings of democracy in one go, in some people’s minds.
Moreover, I don’t see how one can conclude that AQ sees no advantage in Zapatero’s election when they aimed to bring out Aznar’s loss.
Again, good on you for knowing so well the aims of Al Qaeda, and for trusting their spokespeople to be such straightforward folks. You should vote for Al Qaeda if you trust them so much!
Pity they don’t run in elections. But, if you take the word of some other honest and rational minds on that, you can always vote for Kerry, by approximation, it should do.
If you’re going to dispute that AQ got a boost from the election, the burden of proof is on you to show that AQ is indifferent to Aznar’s loss.
Ok, let me get the phone and call AQ headquarters now, so we can hear it straight from them, ok? “Hello guys, I got a question for you, were you indifferent to Aznar’s party’s 4% defeat or are you still partying? If so, when do you plan to resume operations? And by the way, could you kindly tell me what’s your next target so that you know, I may safely avoid that particular train or plane route for a while? PS – if you could also tell me how to vote so that I can favour you and allow you to plot more terrorist attacks, I’ll be extremely glad! I can’t promise I won’t vote the other way, but I’d appreciate the indication anyway. Cheers!”
Now, problem is, AQ is not in the phone book, so, who do I call that is the closest thing to AQ headquarters, hmm… oh ok, I’ll call John Kerry. I’m not sure that will do but I just read in NRO that he’s a good friend of Osama. So I hope he can give me some good insight into the electoral interests and future plans of our dear friends at Al Qaeda.
I’ll let you know what replies I get.
mc 03.27.04 at 9:22 am
As far as I know, AQ claimed that the Madrid bombing was retribution for Spain’s involvement in Iraq. So, you’re right to say that my opinion and that of AQ have the same value. Both I and AQ are correct in our opinion that AQ attacked Spain for their role in Iraq.
… and why would they be plotting terrorist attacks in France, then? There’s quite a few that got prevented in the past years. By your and AQ reasoning, it shouldn’t make sense for them to attack France.
And then there’s reports they had been plotting for years to kill the Pope too. Why would they even want to do that?
And why did they attack the US on 9/11, before Iraq? that’s the biggest terrorist attack so far.
Why did they do it? retribution for… Kosovo?
Or perhaps they have crazier motivations, what with them being fundamentalist religious fanatics and all? They’re very rational in preparing attacks, for sure. But doesn’t seem to me they follow such straight lines when it comes to motives. All those Crusade talk, doesn’t seem to even belong in the present, does it? Do claims to Islamic sovereignity on Andalusia belong in rational, democratic thinking?
Plus, it’s funny, if they attacked because of Iraq, then… the Socialists are right and Spain shouldn’t have gotten involved in Iraq! bingo!
Except, who knows if it could have been attacked anyway. We just have to try and calculate political decisions and votes based on what would terrorist think of it, right? Fantastic. We might as well say, hey Al Qaeda people, here’s a red carpet, why don’t you just walk on it and come to daddy, here, we’ll love you and try and please you as best as we can. We’ll build our whole democracy around you. Who cares what citizens want? It’s what al Qaeda announces and explains by way of video tapes that is most important for a well-functioning democracy committed to fighting terrorism _seriously_.
Or maybe, most important to propagandists commited to win elections no matter if they crap all over the concept of democracy in the process. And no matter if they have already good arguments on their side – using the worst is the new fashion.
If we have to outsmart the terrorists, then, we just have to think and behave like them. It so figures.
I was concerned to establish that AQ benefited from the bombing, not to reveal the motives of Spanish voters. The point is, AQ benefited regardless of the motives of the Spanish electorate.
In other words, you don’t actually care about the very facts of the Spanish elections, as long as you can reiterate your point, based on Al Qaeda’s oh so transparent and honest declarations of intent.
Well, at least you admit it.
You should work for Fox. Sacrificing facts on the altar of propaganda is an essential part of their job requirements.
— for anyone caring about the actual Spanish elections, and not the Spanish elections as filtered through the shrillest propagandist tones of the US elections campaign, here are a few interesting reads (besides the previous posts here at CT by Chris and others):
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031804.shtml
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/03/june_30.html
http://www.reason.com/links/links031704.shtml
Juan G. 03.27.04 at 9:26 am
we Spaniards do not care about your opinion…
Antoni, your comments here might be a bit less annoying if you realized that you do not have a monopoly on Spanish opinion. I am just as Spanish as (presumably) you are, and I consider recent statements by Zapatero and Moratinos to be seriously misguided. I voted for the Socialists (in an advance poll, so I could not have been influenced by the Madrid massacre one way or the other), and I think we were wrong to ally ourselves with the Bush campaign in Iraq. But our troops were not sent to do battle and their presence in Iraq–now–is important. We owe the Iraqis help in fixing what Saddam and the mismanaged war to oust him have broken. As for Al Qaeda, it pains me deeply that they have both murdered over 200 of our compatriots and derived a great political victory from our elections. It makes no difference that you and I and millions of other Spaniards voted the way we did for honourable reasons: Al Quaeda thinks they’ve won and they will surely be tempted to repeat their “success”. What Zapatero and Moratinos should be doing now is making it clear to the Islamists that our election victory is not theirs. I’m sad to say that, so far, they have not been doing it.
Greg Hunter 03.27.04 at 12:27 pm
Keith – It was about the oil and just because America sent it’s troops in, does not automatically imply that the home front sees the benefit. In fact, Corporations will make more money if the “cheap” oil is directed at the East. Cheap Oil will fuel their fledgling consumer economies and greater profits will be gleaned in those markets than the saturated West.
I would almost contend that Bush&Co. are happy with the oil prices as it will drive consumers to begin the change over to purchase more fuel efficient cars, which are the types of Autos that will be made in the East.
Control of the Oil = Control of the Economy – Bush & Co. know it better than anyone, but you seem to be denial.
Rajeev Advani 03.27.04 at 11:57 pm
Greg, never before have I heard the claim that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to increase sales of fuel-efficient cars.
dsquared 03.29.04 at 6:27 am
I think the idea that the Iraq war had nothing to do with oil is much sillier than the idea that it was all about oil.
btw, the fact that oil is $32/barrel is the market’s way of telling you that it doesn’t expect Iraqi production to be recovering any time soon, which is an indictment of the post-war reconstruction at the very least.
Keith M Ellis 03.29.04 at 9:06 am
Well, yes (your second paragraph). But what you wrote was:
…which is not at all the same thing; and, anyway, “a war for oil” is unambiguously an assertion that the war was all or mostly about oil.
Yes, the war involved oil because Iraq acounts for a significant portion of the world’s proven oil fields; but, more importantly, the region has great strategic interest because of the oil. That strategic interest, for example, implicitly underlies the neocon grand strategy for the region.
But every formulation of “war for oil” accusation I’ve seen has been simplistic and posits a direct relationship between US interests in oil/prices and both Iraq wars. (Not to mention Afghanistan!) Which is simply false and obviously so if one is paying attention.
It’s an attempt at worldly cynicism that is, under the surface, quite sophomoric. It’s not much different than the “global money interests” conspiracy theories the antisemites use to explain all foreign policy and war.
One cannot understand the modern history of the middle-east outside of the context of oil. But that doesn’t mean that every major historical event in the region is or can be primarily explained in the context of oil.
Do you think the US’s interests in Argentina is “all about oil”? That this administration’s antipathy to Chavez is “all about oil?” Well, it plays a role, certainly (if for no other reason than that oil is central to the internal conflict). But the US has overtly and covertly opposed quite a few left-wing regimes in Latin American countries that are not oil producers. Or producers of anything much, for that matter.
“War for oil” obfuscates more than it reveals. It gives the appearance of insight without the substance.
wtb 03.29.04 at 8:50 pm
Dear MC,
“… and why would they [Al Qaeda] be plotting terrorist attacks in France, then? There’s quite a few that got prevented in the past years. By your and AQ reasoning, it shouldn’t make sense for them to attack France.”
I’m glad you’re prepared to consider the possibility that AQ “makes sense”. AQ is rational on its own terms. For them it is “rational” to further their goals of global domination. Clearly they aren’t squeamish about the means they choose, but they are “rational” enough to choose means they believe are effective at bringing about the end they desire. They are fundamentally “rational” in this sense.
Therefore, they are rational enough to choose to target Spain in such a way as to weaken an ally of the US. AQ recognizes the US as its principal foe, so it’s rational for them to wish to bring about the election of a more or less anti-US government inasmuch as this weakens the US. AQ also recognizes France, for example, as a foe. Therefore it’s rational for them to target France. Why do they choose to lump together France, Spain, Bali, the US etc.? I don’t know, but they do.
wtb: “Because if AQ thinks they can influence elections like that, they’re likely to try it again.”
MC: “So what? Al Qaeda also thinks the Spanish have to pay for fighting against Muslims centuries ago”.
This is what I’ve warned against: Trivializing the fact that AQ has hit upon a method — or, what amounts to the same thing, believes it has hit upon a method — of furthering their goals by targeting democratic elections. Will you still say “so what” if hundreds more die in pre-election bombings in Italy, Poland, the UK, and the US?
wtb: “I was concerned to establish that AQ benefited from the bombing, not to reveal the motives of Spanish voters. The point is, AQ benefited regardless of the motives of the Spanish electorate.”
MC: “In other words, you don’t actually care about the very facts of the Spanish elections, as long as you can reiterate your point, based on Al Qaeda’s oh so transparent and honest declarations of intent.”
My concern or lack of it isn’t deducible from the previous statement. In other words, you’re putting words into my mouth. I do in fact care about the facts of the Spanish election. My point, once again, is that AQ does not care about the facts of the Spanish election.
MC: “You should work for Fox. Sacrificing facts on the altar of propaganda is an essential part of their job requirements.”
Thanks, MC. I auditioned but they said that to be on Fox I had to be at least as cute as Britt Hume. He’s so dreamy! Sigh …
Rajeev Advani 03.29.04 at 9:16 pm
btw, the fact that oil is $32/barrel is the market’s way of telling you that it doesn’t expect Iraqi production to be recovering any time soon, which is an indictment of the post-war reconstruction at the very least.
Daniel, your judgement here is a bit premature, especially for an economist.
1) Iraqi production is already at 2.3 million to 2.5 million barrels per day compared to the 2.8 million pre-war level, and it’s still moving along.
2) The current high oil prices are more likely due to (according to the recent issue of the Economist):
a) Growing demand from America and China
b) Speculation of oil — at uncommonly high levels because of a lack of returns on other financial assets
c) America buying up too much oil to fill up its strategic petroleum reserves
Each of these factors carries a lot more weight than the handwavy notion you set forth.
Rajeev Advani 03.29.04 at 9:18 pm
Typo above: “The current high oil prices are more likely to do with
mc 04.01.04 at 4:51 pm
Will you still say “so what†if hundreds more die in pre-election bombings in Italy, Poland, the UK, and the US?
wtb – seems to me you’re the one putting words in other people’s mouths. My “so what” was about your whole argument on extracting predictions about AQ’s political moves, definitely not about the bombings themselves and the victims. For gosh’s sake.
Of course terrorists are very rational in planning attacks, but it doesn’t follow from there that you can exactly predict where their interests lie in an election.
Why do they choose to lump together France, Spain, Bali, the US etc.? I don’t know, but they do” – exactly, you don’t know, I don’t know, only they themselves know, whoever and wherever they are. Maybe they really mean what they say when they say it’s all a matter of jihad in the most violent possible meaning. Maybe they really really mean it when they lump in all those countries as “crusaders”. Maybe they are perfectly rational in planning attacks to the tiniest details, but are that completely crazy and fanatical about motives. It does seem so, doesn’t it?
Therefore, it seems stupid and arrogant to pretend to be able to “make sense” of their preferences in that respect, by making such absurd assumptions about who would these terrorists support or oppose in a bloody election.
Terrorists are into terror, not political campaigning. Striking before an election means you spread terror right before an important event in a democracy. The killing and terror effect is achieved instantly, and lastingly, no matter what damn results the elections give. It has a destabilising effect in itself. Destabilising on the whole society, the whole country, no matter who wins and gets to govern. There’s nothing new at all there.
They haven’t brough about anything at all. The “more or less anti-US government” was going to run in elections anyway and had already a very good chance to win anyway, because it was one of the two major parties, with only a tiny percentage of difference between them, both in previous elections and in polls.
That’s one of the hard facts you choose to ignore.
Second hard fact: it’s not that much more ‘anti-US’ than Aznar anyway, in _practice_ if not in rhetorics and all the usual tools of political speech, since Spain under the Socialists’ government is not pulling troops out because those troops will already be under UN-NATO umbrella as was ‘required’ by them as a condition *not* to withdraw troops.
My point, once again, is that AQ does not care about the facts of the Spanish election.
So what, again? Should we take our lead in how to read election results or even behave in elections from terrorists?
Should the Spanish have NOT voted for one of the main contenders, just because the view you’re supporting has it as a certainty that AQ would read the natural alternance of government in a democracy as a victory for them?
And who provides the correct AQ reading of elections anyway? who says the Socialists winning is a victory for them? Who says they care at all about who won elections? *Isn’t their “victory” in the fact they managed to put explosives on trains and make them explode before the police and intelligence could prevent it?* That’s their job, they sure succeeded.
All the rest is pure propaganda, using terrorism to delegitimate the totally normal results of an election like any other. It’s a load of crap.
I auditioned but they said that to be on Fox I had to be at least as cute as Britt Hume. He’s so dreamy! Sigh …
Ewwww… taste is taste, but man… I’ve never seen anyone on Fox that I didn’t find utterly repulsive. They all look like they’re made of plastic. :o
Comments on this entry are closed.