Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[dplax]

MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Pulling a major ally from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, Spain's prime minister-elect will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq in the coming months, a Socialist Party spokesman said.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and the socialists were swept into power during Sunday's election.

"Today, the Spanish people have spoken, and they said they want a government of change," he said in a victory speech.

The surprise victor in national elections vowed that fighting terrorism would be his first priority as he sets about creating an administration "that will work for peace."

According to the party spokesman, Zapatero will take the Spanish troops out of Iraq on June 30 -- the day the Coalition Provisional Authority is scheduled to turn over power to an interim Iraqi government.

The PM-elect has said Spanish troops should never have been in Iraq, because the was no U.N. resolution authorizing military action. Polls show up to 90 percent of Spaniards opposing the war in Iraq.

Outgoing prime minister Jose Maria Aznar has been a key European ally of the Bush administration.

Zapatero, who succeeds Aznar, told a Spanish radio station that no decision would be taken until he was in power and without wide political consultation.

"But the Spanish troops in Iraq will come home," he added in his first post-election interview with Cadena SER radio.

Aznar's choice for successor -- Mariano Rajoy, of the Popular Party -- was defeated soundly three days after terrorist attacks in the capital killed 200 people and wounded about 1,500 others.

Rajoy conceded defeat after some 83 percent of the vote had been counted, showing the Socialist Workers Party on track to win 164 seats in the country's 350-seat parliament.

The ruling conservative Popular Party is tipped to win 148 seats, thus ending eight years of conservative rule.

Turnout was high at 76 percent with voters seeming to express anger with the government, accusing it of provoking the Madrid attacks by supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which most Spaniards opposed.

After a minute of silence in their remembrance "so we never forget," Zapatero expressed thanks "to all the governments and countries that have been with us in our pain."

He congratulated Rajoy as "a very good rival," and said he had called him and pledged "to cooperate in the matters of state."

Zapatero said he would seek to increase the prestige of democratic institutions in Spain, and vowed to create a transparent government that "will act from dialogue ... it is a government that will work for peace."

He added, "My immediate priority will be to fight terrorism, and the first thing I will do tomorrow -- Monday -- will be to search for the unity of the political forces to concentrate all of our efforts in that fight."

Though his government may be one of change, some things will remain constant, he said, "Tonight, I want to govern for all of us and I assure you that power is not going to change me."

Zapatero made his remarks shortly after Rajoy conceded defeat Sunday.

"The results show that he has gained the trust of the majority of the Spanish citizens and the Partido Popular recognizes that this general election has been marred by the tragic consequences of the terrible events, and the Spanish citizen has spoken," said Rajoy, who was flanked by Aznar.

"The majority of the electorate has behaved in a civilized way, and it has been an homage to the memory of the victims," Rajoy added.

He said Sunday's results "force the big national parties to examine our responsibilities," and he vowed that the Partido Popular would do just that.

"More than always, the national priority must always be the defeat of terrorists," he said.

The current government will collaborate in the transition of power, said Eduardo Zaplana, a Cabinet minister and chief spokesman for the PP.

The concession came after some 83 percent of the vote had been counted, showing the Socialist Workers Party on track to win 164 seats in the country's 350-seat parliament.

The ruling conservative Popular Party was on track to win 148 seats.

Internal tracking polls predicted last Wednesday that the PP would win, but Thursday's terrorist attacks in the capital changed everything, one analyst said.

The upset was widely interpreted as a rebuke to Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's strong support for U.S. President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which 90 percent of Spaniards opposed.

It was also seen as a criticism of the Spanish government's handling of last week's bomb blasts. Initially, government authorities said they suspected the Basque separatist group ETA -- whose terrorist attacks the ruling party has staunchly put down in recent years.

But later evidence has pointed to al Qaeda members as the possible attackers.

[Skippy1]

Need I mention the term "knee jerk"?

I think this is what has happened here. It's a serious worry if the terrorist organisations of the world decide that one of their best weapons would be to perpetrate an act like this just prior to a general election. You have to wonder seriously about the timing of this. Also you have to question why the election went ahead in such a short time after this atrocity.

With elections due in the States this year and in the UK next year tension will be running high in the security services.

[Stratos]

I can't help but to feel that the terrorists has won a small victory. A important US ally leaves Iraq as soon as the power is handed over to the Iraqis.

But the Spanish people have spoken.

[Shaide]

Well, the problem is: Aznar did that their goverment wanted to without the opinion of the people, without the opinion the other political groups, the sunday the spanish went to elections and we removed them, because they thought we are stupid or else.
The spanish didnt want spanish troops in Irak and Aznar send them anyway, now their goverment is out. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I hope Zapatero will remove this troops soon

[Skippy1]

I hear what your saying Shaide. No one really wants troops from their country there. The problem at the moment now though is that if we all pull out chaos will ensue. It's not a good situation there at the moment I agree, but it would be a hundred times worse without our soldiers there.

I think your new PM is merely playing to the crowd at the present. Has he really thought of the consequences of this action? And has he the best interests of his people in his mind, or is he simply trying to gain political mileage out of a national tragedy? According to most reports, prior to the rail bombings, the Aznar govt. was well in front in the polls to win the election. Is this true?

[ 03-16-2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Skippy1 ]

[ryaldin]

It's a bit of a catch-22 isn't it? The recently elected party feels obligated to follow their beliefs by pulling Spanish troops out of a war they feel they shouldn't be involved in. At the same time, I doubt they wish to show that an act of terrorism can be an effective tool with which to manipulate governments. *sigh* [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img]
Why can't we all just get along?

[Skunk]

Zapatero didn't say that he would remove the troops regardless - he said that he would remove them if they were not wearing UN helmets by June 30th and the new government had not formally requested UN troop presence. This leaves lots of room for the US/UK to play with and is not too distant from what both Blair and Bush have stated as their aims.

So in reality, all Zapatero has done is to pressure Bush/Blair to live up to their promises - and if the latter two have been honest, there will still be Spanish troops in Iraq after June 30th.

In any event, the Spanish troops number only about 1300 - an insignificant amount. Their presence was more about giving political support to the UK/US than to add any real stability to Iraq.

[Yorick]

Really bad move. Shows terrorism works, and will encourage more of it. A stronger show would have been to say "HAH! Now you've done it... we're staying" and pulled out in a year, as per the mandate.

Some nations have balls. Others cave to terrorism. Good thing Spain weren't always cavers or the Spaniards would still be subjegated by the Muslim Moors.

[Yorick]

I must say, I applaud the sit outs the night of the bombings. That was gutsy and an awesome voice of dissent against terrorism.

[Timber Loftis]

This article does miss some points made by you guys -- including the 90% of the Spanish people who didn't support going to Iraq to begin with. However, it's still got some very good points.

Today's NY Times:
____________________________
March 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Al Qaeda's Wish List
By DAVID BROOKS

I am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened:

The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.

What is the Spanish word for appeasement?

There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.

I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.

We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?

Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.

Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.

There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.

Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.

If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?

Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?

This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com