On April 12, 2004, a viewpoint entitled "Europe must take the initiative against terrorism," appeared in the Tufts Daily. Mr. Exadaktylos wrote a scathing review of Spain's domestic politics, and demanded anti-terrorist initiatives from Europe. However, I would like to present a different perspective.
Here is everything in a nutshell for those who have not been keeping up to date with international events: Opinion polls in Spain showed that more than 80 percent of the Spanish people opposed a war in Iraq. Prime Minister Aznar chose to go to war anyway. Massive anti-war demonstrations occurred. The commuter trains in Spain were bombed during rush hour by terrorists just before Spain's parliamentary elections. Hundreds were killed and thousands were wounded. The Popular Party (the incumbents) blamed the attack on the separatist Basques group E.T.A.. E.T.A.denied any involvement in the attack, and al-Qaida claimed responsibility. In addition, police found evidence to suggest that al-Qaida was responsible for the attack. The Socialist Party won the elections.
First of all, let us ascertain the duties of a democratically elected government. In a democracy, elected officials are given power by the citizens so that they can serve as representatives of those citizens. As such, it is their duty and sole purpose to reflect the interests of those citizens. The will of the citizens has to be the will of the government. Now let us look at Spain. 80 percent of the citizens opposed a war. The government went ahead with the war. In this case, the government was clearly not representing the will of the citizens.
A possible counter to this would be to say that the citizen's will is not in accordance with his own best interests. If so, then a dictatorship and not a democracy would be the optimal form of government since the dictator would always be free to override the will of the citizen with the dictator's own will, presumably in the citizen's own self-interest. Since I doubt that anyone would claim that dictatorships are better than democracies, I can only conclude that it is a universal truth that citizens always will things which serve their own interests (although this is probably an oversimplification.)
Second of all, the Popular Party in Spain lied to its citizens. In not taking responsibility for their own policies and in trying to shift the blame of the attack to local separatists, they have revealed themselves to be an untrustworthy and irresponsible government -- a government willing to blame innocents to further its own cause.
From the points I have outlined above, it is pretty apparent that the Popular Party in Spain had failed as a democratically elected government. It had failed to represent the people, it had failed to be honest to its citizens, and it had failed to take responsibility for its own policies. Fortunately Spain, like all functional democracies, has a way of dealing with failed governments: they don't get re-elected.
But Spain's withdrawal from a destabilized Iraq is problematic. In his article, Mr. Exadaktylos proposes that we "make them equal interlocutors," the "them" referring to the other Middle Eastern nations. However, the problem is that we have already shown them that we are not equals. We have taken away their sense of security. They know that America can just attack unilaterally without provocation at any time to remove their governments. Such a powerful and seemingly malicious stranger can never be seen as an equal or trusted partner.
Some people might say that America did not attack without provocation. Iraq might have possessed W.M.D.s, was an ally of al-Qaida, was in violation of U.N. resolutions, and was a cruel dictatorship. I cannot help but digress here to address this issue.
It is wrong to think that Iraq deserved to be neutralized because they might have developed W.M.D. technology, and thus were a potential danger. To punish people based on a perceived future dangerousness is just wrong, since by a similar principle, we can justify the incarceration of ethnic groups which possess a future dangerousness in their statistically-shown predisposition towards crime. (Disclaimer: I do not believe that any such inclination towards crime is inherent. Rather, I think it is usually a result of socio-environmental factors - but I still remain somewhat bigoted, I guess.)
It is wrong to claim that Sunni-majority Iraq under the Baath party was an ally of the Shiite-majority al-Qaida. The Sunni and Shiite Muslims are traditional rivals or enemies. To have made such a blatantly false claim about Iraq's possible allies shows either the extent of the Bush administration's ignorance or dishonesty.
It is wrong to attack a country simply because it violated U.N. resolutions. The resolutions are there merely as guidelines and not as do-or-die rules. If they were do-or-die rules, there are other countries, such as Israel, which have had problems complying with U.N. resolutions.
But is it justified to use force to depose a cruel and inhumane foreign government? By a similar principle, an alien race could make contact with us, annihilate the White House, leave our country in chaos, and then tell us that democracy is a cruel form of government and that we should follow some hive-mind instead. Which we would obviously think is wrong. The standard of living in Iraq has dropped ridiculously since the war. Once one of the more prosperous nations in the Middle-East with a relatively highly educated populace, it has been reduced to near total anarchy.
Casualty figures are also misleading because although there have not been a lot of civilian deaths, there has been a lot of crippled civilians with amputated limbs due to the nature of the munitions used. The war in Iraq might result in a larger drop in net happiness than Saddam's reign if it had been extended. Sure, things might get better, but things might have become better even with Saddam around (since his dynasty would have ended eventually.)
That digression aside, the point remains that Spain was justified to choose a government which is more appropriate for itself. Europe does not need spineless and shortsighted leaders who simply side with whichever country seems to be strongest. Europe, and even the rest of the world, should learn a lesson from Spain; if an elected government does not fulfill the needs of the voters, out they go. Such a peaceful transition in government contrasts sharply with the violent transitions that are often forced upon weaker nations by stronger nations seeking to install a puppet government.
Richard Huang is a junior majoring in Quantitative Economics and Philosophy
