Madrid: UN's credibility critically
wounded By Ritt Goldstein
Within hours of Thursday's fateful Madrid blasts the
United Nations Security Council met. During a five minute
session the council's 15 members unanimously adopted
a resolution condemning the Basque separatist group
ETA for the deadly attacks. But as it became increasingly
clear that ETA was not responsible, questions
of attempted manipulation of the public were
abundant.
Spain's ruling Popular Party went down
in defeat to the Socialists in Sunday's national
election. It did so amid accusations that the government
had withheld information on the bombings in an effort to
influence the forthcoming vote.
A tough line on
ETA had long been part of the Popular Party's platform.
If indeed such a horrific ETA attack occurred, it would
be certain to win Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's
chosen successor the prime ministership. But with the
Iraq war strongly unpopular among Spaniards, Islamic
jihadi involvement in Thursday's nightmare would have
grave implications for the Popular Party's votes, and it
indeed did.
Despite doubts among experts in many
corners, the Spanish government's reaction to Thursday's
tragedy was immediate. Spain's interior minister, Angel
Acebes, demanded that there was "no doubt" with regard
to ETA's responsibility. But while Spanish passions
could well be expected to influence judgement, what of
the 14 remaining members of the Security Council? And
notably, this was the first instance of a terrorist
attack where any group was ever explicitly condemned by
the council, let alone done so in five minutes.
Explaining how ETA came to be blamed, the
council's French president, Ambassador Jean-Marc de la
Sabliere, said: "The Spanish government stated that, and
the Spanish delegation has asked the council to put this
element in their resolution and members of the council
accepted it." The US ambassador to the United Nation,
John Negroponte, explained that blame was assigned to
ETA at the Spanish government's urging, and because "it
is the judgement of the government of Spain that these
attacks were carried out by ETA and we have no
information to the contrary".
Though repeated
questions were raised in many quarters, and the head of
Europol, Juergen Storbeck, had voiced reservations
regarding ETA's involvement, the Security Council
nevertheless chose to condemn ETA. But the fact that
council members such as the US and France chose to
portray their action based upon the Spanish government's
wishes, illustrated a concurrent distancing from the
decision. The council's actions were appreciated as
questionable from their outset.
On Saturday, as
Spanish protesters accused their government of
attempting to promote the theory of ETA's responsibility
for its political advantage, Acebes repeatedly insisted
that ETA was the prime suspect. But on Thursday, the
Spanish police had already found a van containing
detonators and a tape of Koranic verses, ETA had issued
a rare denial of responsibility and concurrently blamed
"an operation of the Arab resistance" and an al-Qaeda
related group had claimed the act as their own.
Something else was uncovered as well.
In
Thursday's alleged al-Qaeda letter claiming
responsibility, the group Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
taunted Aznar and the coalition forces, saying: "Aznar,
where is America? Who will protect you, Britain, Japan,
Italy and others from us?" The specter of the "war on
terrorism" bringing the terrorism increases that had
been warned of by Western intelligence services became
suddenly real. And the vulnerability of the Iraq
Coalition's democratic governments to be voted from
office - many of these governments supporting the war in
spite of substantive popular protest - became a reality
too.
The Spanish government is the first
of those in this category to fall, in spite of the
Security Council's action which might have given it the
legitimacy to continue. And efforts were made to
maintain that legitimacy, to cite ETA as potentially
involved - both within Spain and abroad - through
Sunday's election.
A Sunday Reuters article
reported that: "Some Spaniards were vitriolic in
accusing Aznar of 'manipulating' public opinion over the
bombings." And on Sunday's national US television,
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice all insisted that there was
insufficient information to know who was responsible for
the Madrid attacks. But this was long after Thursday's
Security Council resolution naming ETA, and with an
apparent election debacle facing Spain's war supporters
that very day.
Notably, the Bush administration
has claimed al-Qaeda activity at every opportunity.
Their failure to do so here, and in the face of
substantive evidence of Islamic jihadi activity, being
the one curious exception.
Highlighting another
agenda, all three US officials argued that the Madrid
attacks should firm world resolve in the "war on
terror", with Rice insisting the war was being won.
Their television appearances could be described as
containing elements of a "pep talk". But as the new
Spanish prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,
has just said that he will recall Spain's 1,300 Iraqi
peacekeeping troops by June 30, the rationale behind a
broad effort to preserve and promote war on terror
support becomes more apparent.
In a statement
laden with paradox, Rumsfeld likened the coalition
efforts to helping "the neighborhood children against
the bully". But the secretary appears to have blithely
forgotten the accusations by many UN members of Bush
administration bullying in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Much to his credit, UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan repeatedly avoided media queries as regards
responsibility for Madrid, but simultaneously
demonstrated the UN's weakness in the face of big-power
politics. Notably, it was the fate of the UN's
predecessor, the League of Nations, to fall during the
1930's as the world's major powers of the time chose to
pursue paths of national expediency rather than
multilateral interest.
A 1999 report by the US
Department of Defense emphasized that the existence of a
multilateral world, a multipolar world, was the best way
to ensure lasting global stability. But it warned that:
"International systems tend to last two to three
generations. They are both created and destroyed by
large-scale conflict. Like complex biological systems,
international systems appear to go through life cycles
with birth, flexibility in youth, more rigidity as the
system matures, and demise."
Many international
diplomats have recently called for the UN's "revision
and renewal", and particularly a revised design for the
Security Council.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
