The recent terrorist bombing in Madrid resulted in more than 200 deaths, triggered a change in government in Spain and set off a chain reaction that is reverberating around the world as other governments consider their support for the occupation of Iraq. It also set off some ungentlemanly carping among those who won the war and execute the attempts at peace.
The United States, which is so fond of lecturing the rest of the world on democracy, served up the first volley when House Speaker Dennis Hastert called Spain, "a nation who succumbed ... to threats of terrorism [and] changed their government." Jose Luis Rodrigues Zapatero, the prime minister-elect and head of Spain's Socialist Party, ignored Hastert and renewed his pledge to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. He has called the U.S.-led occupation a "fiasco."
Probably with some prompting from cooler heads in the Administration, President George W. Bush eventually got around to calling Zapatero with congratulations on his election victory. Someone in the Pentagon may have reminded Bush that although Zapatero is not singing the Bush song on terrorism, U.S.-Spanish military cooperation has long been essential to NATO, particularly when U.S. Air Force heavy-lift aircraft need a refueling stop en route from the United States to Middle East hotspots.
In spite of Bush's telephone call, Zapatero said publicly thereafter that, "the war has been a disaster ... it hasn't generated anything but more violence and hate."
The victory of anti-war forces in Spain has not gone unnoticed, even by the United States' most devoted fans and followers, the Australians. On March 18, opposition leader Mark Latham, sensing a change in the wind, outlined a timetable to bring Australia's 850 troops and advisers stationed in Iraq home by Christmas. Prime Minister John Howard, one of the political visitors so dear as to rate a visit to Bush's Texas ranch, is still holding strong for the occupation, but he reads headlines just as well as Latham and will no doubt be carefully sniffing the winds in the outback.
Closer to home, Poland's President Aleksandr Kwasniewski, a master of political gamesmanship, on March 18 said that he had been "misled" about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that Polish troops could leave Iraq months earlier than originally planned.
Within 24 hours of those remarks, Bush was on the telephone with a pep talk, to which Kwasniewski responded that Polish troops would be in Iraq "as long as needed ... plus one day longer."
On the first anniversary of the Iraq war, the Antiwar Committee of Ukraine held a 500-strong peace demonstration in downtown Kyiv before marching to the U.S. Embassy, where they presented an antiwar resolution. In spite of obvious qualms by some Ukrainians, the government's true position may have been tipped during a recent television program. The presenter, known to be close to top officials, said, "It would make sense for [Ukraine] to take our military out of Iraq if we don't get [reconstruction] contracts."
As if by magic, one of the U.S.' best-known traveling salesmen, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, was scheduled to arrive in Kyiv on March 25 for discussions with the major players, including President Leonid Kuchma. Armitage's departure news conference is likely to include some sharp questions about the issue of Iraq contracts, and one would expect that there might be answers to at least partially sate Ukrainian appetites.
But where does this leave President Bush's favorite cohort and cheerleader, Prime Minister Tony Blair? One would have to assume that Blair has paid close attention to the results that brought down his close friend, Jose Maria Aznar, and will be looking for ways to assure he does not share a similar fate.
Democracy is certainly one of the greatest discoveries of mankind. However, it is ironic that in George Bush's great crusade to set Iraq on the straight and narrow, it is those governments that are most democratic in their structure that now face the greatest difficulties in staying the course.
The Spanish government that followed Bush into Iraq is down and out, and Australia, the UK and others are running scared.
What is even more certain, based on recent events, is that those countries Bush likes to excoriate as evil and anti-democratic - Syria, Iran and North Korea - are virtually fireproof for the near-term future. Enough real and political blood has been shed that none of those who followed the United States into Iraq would give one minute's favorable consideration to expanding the so-called War on Terrorism.
If Iraq has done nothing else, it has taught the United States that ownership of the world's most expensive arsenal is no match for a determined resistance fighter with a home-made bomb.
In the battle of high tech versus guile and determination, the latter is more likely to triumph.
Jim Davis, a resident of Kyiv for almost a decade, is retired from the professional staff of the U.S. House of Representatives. He may be reached at jdavis@i.kiev.ua.
|
