World Opinion Roundup on the Aftermath of the Madrid Terror Attacks

In World Opinion Roundup, washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Jefferson Morley conducts a freewheeling tour of the best of Internet news sites from Afghanistan to Beijing to Mexico City to Paris to Zimbabwe.

Roundup brings the diversity of global online media to your screen, presenting today's news and views from journalists, pundits and commentators from every continent. We'll talk about America in the eyes of the world, compare journalistic practices, analyze politics and perspectives, examine the nature of news and debate styles of journalism.

Morley was online Tuesday, March 16 at 1 p.m. ET, to examine how the world sees the news of the day.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

________________________________________________

Jefferson Morley: Welcome everybody. The Spanish elections results, as influenced by the March 11 terror attacks in Madrid, have triggered lots of questions. We'll start with those. There also seems to be some interest in Haiti and Iran. I will try to get to those well.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: It seems to me you led your column with a misleading premise, though I don't know if you meant to. You wrote:

"The authors of the attack ... prompted the new prime minister, antiwar socialist Jose Luis Rodriquez Zapatero, to call for the withdrawal of 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq."

Doesn't this fly in the face of Zapatero's pre-attack campaign pledge to remove Spanish troops from Iraq, and ignore that there was popular opposition to backing Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq? You are inadvertently (or purposely?) feeding the misconception here in the states (not elsewhere in the world) that the Spanish people are appeasing terrorists. It's such a simplistic and facile conclusion, even if it does feed our self-serving delusions of being the world's storehouse of "firm resolve and freedom". Please tell me you haven't joined that crowd at The Post (along with Kurtz, Krautheimer, et al). Real journalists are in such short supply as it is at our newspapers of record.

Jefferson Morley: Hi Bethesda,

Another reader made this same comment. I think my wording is not as precise as it should have been. Yes, Zapatero was on record as saying the war was a "disaster" and that the Spanish troops had been withdrawn BEFORE the attacks. So the attacks did not prompt them.

Good point. No, I am not purposely or inadvertently feeding the notion that the Spaniards are appeasing terrorists. And now I have not joined "that crowd" at the Post. As my colleagues will be glad to tell you I am not part of any political grouping at the Post. Like everybody else at the Post I have my opinions.

_______________________

Nederland, Colo.: You say "the authors of the attack ... manipulated the Spanish parliamentary system and prompted ... Zapatero to call for the withdrawal of 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq."

How did they manipulate parliament?

And this morning at another WP Forum, Borja Echevarria says "Zapatero had already announced before the elections that he would withdraw spanish troops from Irak if he won."

So how was Zapatero "prompted" as you say? Thank you.

Jefferson Morley: How al Qaeda manipulated the parliamentary system is fairly obvious. They massacred 200 people on the eve of the vote with an eye towards influencing the voter's behavior. By all accounts, they succeeded. In my judgment, that's manipulation.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hi Mr. Morley,

I am curious to know your thoughts about the recent Spanish elections. There are those who believe that the election there singled an appeasement to the terrorists who carried out the bombings. What do you think will be the implication of the elections vis-a-vis U.S.-Spanish relations on the "War on Terror," especially considering the close relationship the U.S. has enjoyed with Spanish Socialist Prime Ministers in the past?

I thank you.

Jefferson Morley: The notion that the Spaniards are appeasing al Qaeda is already a staple of the conservative media pundits. This view, like so much of the foreign commentary from this set, is unburdened by much knowledge of Spain, Spanish politics or Spanish society.

The implications of the elections for the U.S.-Spanish relations are profound. First, the administration is going to have to mute its rhetoric about the "coalition of the willing" and "New Europe." Membership in both groups just shrank. Second, the administration has already sent its congratulations, a signal, I think, that Bush and Co. know they cannot simply scorn their European critics but have to engage them. This is progress, of sorts. The real impact though, I think will be on U.S.-British relations. As The Guardian noted this morning, the Spanish attacks and election results are "a brutal lesson" for Tony Blair. That is to say, al Qaeda could flush him from office just as they flushed Aznar. If an antiwar government came to power in London, Bush would face a crisis in Iraq. Given the overstretched condition of the U.S. military in Iraq, the British troops in Iraq probably could not be replaced.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Are there any exit polls to clarify whether Spain's voters were reacting to (a) the terrorist attack itself or (b)the government's initial response to the attack -- i.e., deflecting blame from al Qaeda?

Jefferson Morley: I haven't seen any polling on this question. Most of the press coverage suggests both factors were at work: a) the government's initial handling of the event smacked on 'spin' and b) many had believed that supporting the U.S. war in Iraq would invite terror attacks. The context for these developments also worked against Aznar. Like Tony Blair, Aznar has a reputation, right or wrong, as a skillful political manipulator. When that skill seems too obvious or inappropriate, he was vulnerable. Like President Bush, Aznar has a reputation among his critics as arrogant. For example, when Spanish opponents to the war mounted huge demonstrations last year, Aznar ignored them. These factors contributed to his weakness in the wake of the attack.

_______________________

Ames, Iowa: Dear Jeff,

Thanks for answering our questions. An obvious one -- do you think what happened in Spain could also happen in the U.K., seeing as the government supported a war that was hugely unpopular with the general public? How defining was this election in Spain for U.S./European relations?

Jefferson Morley: What happened in Spain could definitely happen in the U.K and in the United States. Indeed, I would be surprised if both London (and Washington) do not experience mass terror attacks in the next year.

The question for U.S.-European relations is trickier. The al Qaeda strategy in Europe, as in Iraq, is go for the achilles heel of the strong Bush strategy: the doubts of allies. In Iraq, U.S.-trained policemen, the Jordanian embassy, the United Nations, and now this week, international aid workers, have all been targeted. The geopolitical version of this strategy is to punish U.S. coalition allies.

So as the danger mounts for Europe, the Bush administration no doubt hopes that they will flee to Washington's embrace. I doubt its going to happen. The European's domestic security situation requires Washington's help but I doubt any European leader, even Tony Blair, is going to think that the occupation of Iraq is part of the effort to protect European subway systems.

And there is the pressure of reality pushing Washington toward Europe. The U.S. cannot, under any circumstances, afford to lose the British troops in Iraq. So the Bush administration may have to do what it loathes: accommodate antiwar public opinion in Britain.

_______________________

London, U.K.: Hello,

Just a quick response to your mention of Tony Blair's vulnerability.

As an American expat in the U.K. (of four years) it seems highly unlikely to me that a terrorist attack could be used in the same way to manipulate a British election unless the current political landscape changes significantly.

The Labour party has a solid lock on the electorate and the chief opposition has been 100 percent behind both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Only a split within Labour threatens Blair. And my feeling is that a terrorist attack would likely force labour closer together rather than tear them apart.

Jefferson Morley: Interesting point, London.

The dynamics of British politics ARE different. Both countries have a large antiwar constituency. The British left would probably view a mass terror attack in London more as a result of the Iraq war than of al Qaeda resurgence. But unlike Spain there is no leading rival to Blair set to take over.

In the U.K. -- and the United States -- mass terror attacks might well have the opposite effect as in Spain: bucking up public support for pro-war incumbents.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How is Kerry perceived outside the U.S? Is it a "better than Bush" mentality?

Jefferson Morley: There is definitely an "anybody but Bush" mentality. I explored the issues in a recent column which you can read here: Kerry Ahead in International Online Caucus (Post/World Opinion Roundup, March 9)

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: There is one question that I cannot get out of my mind. Who would al Qaeda rather see win in November? A Bush victory would seem to be best. The U.S. would remain alienated and Bush-bashing could continue worldwide. Many would still view terrorism as America's problem. A Kerry victory risks bringing the U.S. back into Europe's good graces thus enabling increased support and cooperation against al Qaeda activities. The frightening thing is that another attack in the U.S. would almost guarantee a Bush victory and I doubt this concept is lost on al Qaeda.

Your thoughts?

Jefferson Morley: My guess is that al Qaeda has no greater preference or fear of the candidates. Bush is probably helpful for recruiting purposes, especially in Iraq. But Al Qaeda recruiting will not suffer if Kerry comes to office. Kerry, if he reduces U.S. military commitment to Iraq, might be able to concentrate more on al Qaeda but not in a qualitatively different way.

The big advantage Bush's reelection would provide al Qaeda is his unwillingness or inability to attract allies to help deliver effective results in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This makes al Qaeda's task of isolating the U.S. easier.

_______________________

Washington, Mo.: Is there any sense of "buyer's remorse" setting in among Spain's voters? Has anyone questioned the Socialist Party's rallies and how they may have exploited the emotions of voters at the time?

Jefferson Morley: I don't see much sign of that in the Spanish press. More typical has been commentary saying that Aznar got his comeuppance for defying massive public opposition to the war in Iraq and for a political style that critics found haughty.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: What is the likelihood other European governments will follow Spain's lead and withdraw troops from Iraq? Is the invasion in Iraq as unpopular with the citizens now as it was pre-invasion?

Jefferson Morley: I don't think any other governments are going to pull their troops. In fact, both Norway and the Netherlands, two of the quieter members of the coalition of the willing, today stated their intention to stay.

But none of these nation's participation is practically important. Only the British forces matter and Tony Blair is wholly committed to keeping them there. The question is what the British government would do in the wake of a massive terror attack in London?

_______________________

Savannah, Ga.: Hello,

When you say that the view that Spain has appeased the terrorists "is unburdened by much knowledge of Spain, Spanish politics, or Spanish society," what sort of aspects about Spain are you referring to?

Jefferson Morley: The fact that Spaniards were overwhelmingly opposed to the war in Iraq and that Prime Minister Aznar was mistrusted by some both for manipulatively and arrogance, and that many Spaniards had predicted that getting involved in the war would precipitate attacks against Spaniards. The people who made those predictions feel vindicated. The people who had doubts about Aznar had those doubts confirmed. This is why people against his party, not the hope that their vote will "appease" al Qaeda.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Morley -- Would it be an overstatement to say that "The terrorists have won in Spain?"

Jefferson Morley: No. It wouldn't be an overstatement to say the terrorists won.

They won a victory in Spain because they understood the vulnerability of democratically elected leaders who went to war in Iraq despite the opposition of their publics. They understood this vulnerability better than the leaders themselves. Prime Minister Aznar, like President Bush and Blair, thought success in Iraq would strengthen their hand and bring around the doubters. This didn't happen. The opponents of the war thought "success" in Iraq would strengthen al Qaeda and bring more attacks. This did happen.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Do you believe that U.S.-European intelligence and military cooperation in pre-empting terrorist will now increase whether or not political differences continue to expand across the Atlantic? And secondly, does John Kerry benefit politically from the increased risk we find ourselves experiencing because of Bush's war on Iraq?

Jefferson Morley: Such cooperation is urgent and necessary. As someone who rides the subway in Washington, I certainly hope it is increasing. The question is whether the Bush administration can put aside its ideological certainties and admit that it needs help from the very Europeans it so confidently derided as "irrelevant" and unnecessary. The Europeans too will have to put aside their dislike of Bush and enlist U.S. power in their own defense.

Yes, I think Kerry does benefit from increased risk -- it enables him to argue that Bush's policies haven't made Americans safe. That said, another attack on U.S. soil would probably redound to Bush, if only because he is the leader

_______________________

Portland, Maine: I don't think the U.S. people are dumb -- they're just slow. They finally figure out the truth, it just takes a little while for us to sort it out. The recent election in Spain is an indication that many in the world have realized that the war in Iraq and the occupation is a "disaster" (to quote the newly elected Spanish leader) -- not only did it fail to uncover WMD, but it has actually increased terrorism, not reduce it. Polls suggest that the British people have already figured this out. Take a look at Hans Blix's comments today to reflect the increasing world opinion. The American people may be the last to figure this out, but we're getting it -- and we'll get it before November.

Jefferson Morley: Americans are certainly slow to pick up on the ways in which the rest of the world sees things differently than they do. But this is changing.

_______________________

Miami, Fla.: I believe that the dislike for the Bush Administration abroad will have a direct effect on the upcoming election and might be the deciding factor of whether or not Bush will be able to win Florida (and some of the other swing states). Florida is populated with many "new Americans," immigrants who recently became naturalized citizens. These people love America, but they also understand and internalize the feelings of people who live in their homelands. Unlike many Americans whose immigrant roots are too distant to care about the people in Europe, newer Americans know why foreigners dislike Bush so much. In fact, if they would have stayed in their homelands, they would probably dislike Bush too. I believe that especially in Florida, this marginal group will tip the balance and give the White House to Kerry.

Jefferson Morley: Interesting observation. One possible bit of evidence in support of your thought.

Recent arrivals to the United States from Cuba are much less hard-line against the Castro government than earlier arrivals. They are also poorer, blacker and more liberal in their voting patterns.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I realize that he may have been misquoted, but, presuming it is true, do you get the sense that at least a respectable group of foreign leaders prefer Kerry over Bush?

Jefferson Morley: It would not surprise me a bit if French President Jacques Chirac and German leader Gerhard Schroeder would welcome Bush's defeat and Kerry's election. I suspect that Mexican president Vicente Fox, Chilean president Ricardo Lagos, Brazilian president Lula da Silva fall in the pro-Kerry camp.

But Bush has his fans too. Colombian president Alvaro Uribe has a good relationship with Bush that might be replicated with Kerry. Other Bush fans include Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, Ariel Sharon of Israel, and the emir of Kuwait who is still grateful to the first President Bush for returning his real estate to him in 1991.

Vladimir Putin may prefer Bush, if only because Bush hasn't given him a hard time about much.

_______________________

Houston, Tex.: Mr. Morley,

Why do you believe the media at large has described the election of a socialist government a "step back for democracy?" Last time I check, the Spanish people have not lost any of their democratic rights and I feel this characterization is both misleading and shows typical conservative bias.

Jefferson Morley: I don't believe the media at large has described the Spanish election as a "step back for democracy." I believe the conservative media is dismayed that Spanish voters bounced a Bush ally.

Who is the "media at large" and who used the phrase "a step back for democracy?"

_______________________

Meriden, Conn.: First Powell, then Cheney, and now Bush have demanded that Kerry "name names" to back up his assertion that some leaders are hopeful that he'll defeat Bush. Am I the only one who is reminded of the McCarthy committee's demand that political adversaries "name names" of their colleagues? Why haven't the Democrats pounced on Bush & Co. over this nonsense?

Jefferson Morley: Of course, they have. This is an election year and they're trying to lock in voters first impressions. They've got a good hook here because it Kerry says, (and this example is entirely hypothetical), "Tony Blair's people tell me they'd love to have a new team in Washington," then Blair's people will immediately deny it. They're trying to get Kerry in a box where he can't reply. The Democrats have "pounced," mainly by sending out diplomatic surrogates like former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke to say, "Of course, Kerry is right. I've talked to those same leaders."

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Perhaps I am reading too much into some of the editorial comments you cited, but there seems to be a disconnect between the editorials from France, Germany, Italy and Britain and those from Spain. While Spain's editorials seem to place the blame on Bush/Aznar and the war on terrorism, the editorials from the other papers, especially the French sociologist and the Guardian newspaper, seem to be arguing for a more aggressive approach to combatting terrorism, while stating a sense of increased vulnerability in Europe. Is it possible that these attacks will have the possibility of bringing the U.S. and E.U. closer together in the fight against terrorism and other areas? I am sure the Spanish and Europe as a whole is experiencing the whole range of emotions we experienced after 9/11 -- anger, reflection, resolve to live -- and perhaps it is too early to tell what the end result of this attack will have on U.S./EU relations. However the recognition of vulnerability and a common threat, causes possibility of closer U.S.-E.U. cooperation to jump out at me from the divergent views expressed. Your thoughts would be appreciated on this matter.

Jefferson Morley: I have noticed the same difference and I think its real. I think Europe is more worried. When worried they look to the United States. The question they face is, how will aligning themselves with the U.S. enhance their safety? If they send troops to Iraq, will that make their subways safer? This is especially excruciating question for the countries that are already cooperating with the U.S: ie. The U.K., Holland, Poland, Norway, etc.

_______________________

Kennesaw, Ga.: One of the themes in American press commentary is that even with disagreement over the war in Iraq cooperation between European countries and the United States on intelligence efforts against Islamists remains strong.

How true is this, really? The 3/11 bombings in Spain seem to have caught everyone by surprise, and other Europeans have to wonder whether they are any better protected than the Spanish were. At a minimum it seems that even if allied intelligence efforts are coordinated there are major gaps.

Jefferson Morley: It's a good question. My guess is that cooperation is strong -- but not strong enough to prevent mass terror attack on "soft" targets in major Western cities.

_______________________

Jefferson Morley: We are well past our scheduled conclusion. So I have to sign off now. Many thanks for all the questions. I'm sorry we didn't have time to get to Haiti but with so many questions on our main topic, the Madrid bombing questions took priority.

See you next Tuesday at 1.

_______________________