Internet Commentator

Self Determination II

Peter has some comments on the Gibraltar post below that I can't leave unanswered:

Nationality is a little more reciprocal than this line of reasoning assumes. At 28,000 people, Gibraltar could probably elect an MP or two to Westminster. Who are they to decide Britain's foreign policy over the representatives of 60 million people? South Vietnam was in a similar situation vis a vis the USA

What possible national interest does Britain have in antagonising a close NATO ally?

Sometimes I have cause to regret being insufficiently precise, this is one of them. Peter is both right and wrong. I neglected to clarify that, while the wishes of the residents of Gibraltar ought to be paramount for the purposes of its self-determination, this in itself does not confer a "right" to remain under British rule per se. Self determination goes both ways and while I think it would be immoral for the British to simply abandon Gibraltar, they would be within their rights to do so. However, the argument is not about whether Gibraltar is to be ejected from British rule but whether it is to be ceded to Spain against the expressed will of its people. It is worth being precise about this: If the issue is annexation by Spain, the issue of British consent to governing Gibraltar is irrelevant as are the priorities of British foreign policy. This is an argument of principle and not of realpolitik but it is also worth adopting an amoral, realist stance and reversing Peter's question: What possible foreign policy benefit would accrue to Britain by sacrificing the principle of self-determinaton and abandoning Gibraltar to Spain? Spain is already a friendly country, how may the relationship improve further? Would such a minor improvement justify acting in such a tyrannical way towards Gibraltar?

Is Zapatero planning to bring back the auto-da-fe? Deport them all as forced labour to carve a vast mausoleum from the rock of the Madrid hills?

Who are the people a government should serve? Maybe in a colony with recognisably closer blood ties like the Falklands, policy would be more uncompromising, but you have some distance to go to persuade me that Gibraltarians have any more claim to Britishness than Hong Kong Chinese or Zimbabweans.

I'm afraid that Peter here demonstrates exactly the same "collectivist meta-context" that Perry decried in his original post. It really doesn't matter why Gibraltar doesn't want to be annexed by Spain, it just matters that it doesn't. That is, after all, what liberty is all about, making your own choice for your own reasons and not what the government has already decided is the optimum reason.

The Northern Ireland situation has the same dynamic. Very few English people express any affinity to Northern Ireland's Unionists. Most, even the soldiers who've served there, seem to question why a place with such an ugly culture and unappealing people on both sides should drain lives and money.

Well, Northern Ireland only has the same dynamic if you adopt that darned "collectivist meta-context". What distinguishes Northern Ireland from Gibraltar is that, let's just say, opinions differ among residents as to the merits of remaining British. The point of reciprocal nationality is important, and ought to be better understood among Unionists, but the implication of it is not that Northern Ireland may be simply ceded to the Republic should UK residents wish to eject it. In the event of such an ejection, self determination still applies and that province would remain independent until a majority wanted to unite with a territory which wanted it back.

Self Determination

Great post by Perry on Gibraltar:

In fact members of both the 'tranzi left' and 'paleo right' see Gibraltar as a weird anachronism and despite those groups fetishising their minor differences, both have a shared collectivist meta-context and think nothing of what the inhabitants of The Rock wish for themselves.

"Shared collectivist meta-context" is a bit of a Samizdata-ism but it is the best possible way of describing the problem here. Those who consider Gibraltar as some sort of anachronism and think everything would be just dandy if it could be handed over to Spain are guilty of only seeing the big picture. This 'big picture' only includes the groups, Britain and Spain and not the smaller group of Gibraltar residents, never mind actual individuals. According to this view, Gibraltar is an irritant to the wonderful relations which would exist between these two nations if only Gibraltar wasn't there. But it's not the fault of those in Gibraltar that Spain wants to annexe it and there is no reason why they should sacrifice anything to facilitate diplomatic hob-nobbing.

Black Milk

Wonderful stuff: Madsen Pirie posts an extract from a FT piece by Leslie Crawford explaining the Spain to Italy, Parmesan Cheese Road:

Every week... a truck a departed from Arzúa in the far north-west corner of Spain, carrying 1,564 rounds of 12kg cheeses to the region of Parma in Italy. There, Arzúa's produce is stamped with the regional appellation certificate for Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese.

"The Parmesan cheese is an excellent way to camouflage excess milk production," says the owner of a herd of 40 cows. "It is very expensive to buy more production rights on the open market. So all this milk, which should not exist, goes to make Parmesan cheese, which also doesn't exist. Think of it as being 'black' milk which is being laundered in Italy."

Things I had forgotten about Portugal

Got back last night from a very enjoyable break. We stayed at the Carlisle family's lovely property in Charneca, near Guincho beach and Cascais. It was my fifth visit to Portugal but the last time was to Lisbon in 2000 and I was reminded of a number of (I think) interesting features about Portugal:

1. Portuguese, as spoken by natives, sounds nothing like a Latin language and sounds strikingly Slavic. It is easy to forget this if you hear most of your Portuguese from Brazilian music or films (such as the excellent City of God).

2. Portugal either has little by way of building regulations or a very relaxed attitude towards enforcement. I don't think I saw a single footpath which would comply with Irish requirements. Where footpaths exist, they tend to be beautifully but irregularly paved in granite cubes, steeply sloping and with high curbs. I wondered where the wheelchair-users, provided with designated parking spaces, were expected to go once they had parked their cars.

3. There are two Portuguese words for ham. Presunto is the fancy cured type such as Jamon Serrano or Prosciutto di Parma, while Fiambre is the ordinary boiled stuff "enjoyed" by the Irish and British.

European Constitution

Nice to see the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, hardly your average "eurosceptic", coming out in favour of a UK referendum for the proposed European Constitution. Here in Ireland, our constitution requires a referendum before the European constitution may be ratified here. I cannot see such a referendum passing.

Contorted logic..

..from Dick O'Brien:

First of all, PSOE had always said it would withdraw from Iraq if elected. It wasn't prompted into this policy by the bombing. Secondly, nor did the Spaniards change their mind about Iraq after the bombing. Bear in mind they wholeheartedly opposed Aznar's Iraq policy since its inception, not since the bombing. Therefore the bombing didn’t make people change their minds about a lot of things.

Err, not "a lot of things" but one big thing: the government they were about to elect!

Polls prior to the Bombings: (as tabulated by John Chappell)

La Vanguardia: PP 162, PSOE 147. = PP, +15 over PSOE

El Pais: PP 168, PSOE 141. = PP, +27 over PSOE

El Periodico: PP 169, PSOE 140. = PP, +29 over PSOE

La Razon: PP 171, PSOE 141. = PP, +30 over PSOE

Election Result:

PSOE 164, PP 148. = PSOE, +18 over PP

Even if you take the most flattering assessment of the PSOE's chances prior to 11-M from La Vangua, this is still a massive swing of 33 seats, about 11%

Reason we bemoan the Spanish Election

I fear that Dick misses the point:

[D O'B]: Spaniards voted, not Islamist terrorists. Reading posts such as these and some of the more virulent remarks in various comments threads reminded me of the European reaction to the election of George Bush four years ago. Many were quick to condemn Americans as a nation of fools for electing Bush. Americans were rightly outraged by this and pointed out that it was nobody’s business but their own who they choose as a leader. I suspect that many who had expressed those sentiments then are now telling Spaniards which government they should choose.

Here's the point Dick: If the Madrid bombings hadn't taken place, you admit yourself that the likely outcome would have been the reelection of the PP, albeit with a reduced majority or as a minority administration. We can take it from the timing that the terrorists wanted to alter this outcome, They succeeded. As your fellow backseat driver Jon writes: Mission accomplished

Spain's "floating vote" and a section of previously indifferent voters reacted like Pavlov's dog. It is unfair to extend this to voters of the PP or people who would have voted for the PSOE anyway. If the PSOE were headed for victory anyway this wouldn't be such a big deal. The reason all of us "European and American weblogs" reacted like we did, is that the Spanish changed their vote as a result of the terrorists actions and gave an explicit imprimatur to appeasement. Their message is to protest that Spain has been put in harm's path because of its association with Bush's war on terrorism. If you think that Al-Qaeda's objection is restricted to Iraq you find yourself in the logically absurd position of holding that Al-Qaeda is more exercised by Spanish peacekeeping troops in Iraq than it is exercised by the very real crackdown on actual Al-Qaeda activity within Spain which has gone on over the last few years.

[D O'B]: Talk of appeasement and surrender amounts to political points scoring in the aftermath of what has been a huge tragedy for Spain.

I'm afraid I find this hard to take considering the use Zapatero and the PSOE made of the Madrid bombings in the runup to the election. What was this if not political point-scoring:

[Iberian Notes]: Socialist party candidate Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, speaking live on television, for the first time tried to use the bombings as a political issue...Zap said that the Aznar government should share everything it knows with the citizens, thus implying that was exactly what Aznar and the PP were not doing. ..Question number one was a direct, "Are you accusing Aznar of a coverup?", and Zap evaded the question. Number two was "Do you see a connection between the bombings and the Iraq war?", to which Zap responded "Time will tell."

Who is scoring political points here?

[D O'B]:Condemning Spain’s democratic decision smacks of dangerous tunnel vision, a black and white philosophy, an assertion that unless you do things one way, you’re in the camp of the enemy.

Just because something is democratic doesn't mean that cannot be simultaneously dishonorable. Nobody is suggesting that Spain is in the camp of the enemy, just that the swing portion of its electorate has made a cowardly, shortsighted and ultimately counterproductive decision.

Bjørn Stærk makes this point better than me:

[Stærk]: This is where idealization of voting alone as the essence of democracy leads you. If people vote, democracy wins, if they don't, democracy loses. By this logic, falling voter turnout in Western democracies means we become less democratic. Higher turnouts means we become more democratic. Since Al-Qaeda is against democracy, it follows that they want fewer people to vote, and that must have been why they attacked Spain. But the people of Spain did not budge, and yesterday took a stand against the terrorist by voting. Another al-Qaeda plot foiled!

That's if you believe Aftenposten - or Dagbladet, who believes that "no outcome of M11 could have been better" than yesterday's election. That's is if you live in that curious part of the world where it's more important that you vote than what you vote for, where the fact that voters send a message is more important than which message they're sending

Well, I have a message to the people of Spain: You are weak, and you are stupid. By blaming your own government for the attack, and electing one that will carry out al-Qaeda's wishes in Iraq, you've given in to the terrorists. You had the opportunity to say "we may not agree fully with the war in Iraq but now that we're there we must hold the line against the terrorists", but instead you went for "um, that attack was really bad and we're angry and all that, but al-Qaeda's got a point about Iraq, and it's all really Aznar's fault".

Way to go Spain.

That's really going to show the terrorists you mean business: Give them what they want.

It seems that prior to the Madrid bombings, the Spanish electorate were likely to reelect the PP. The PSOE had been explicit about their intention to pull Spanish peace-keeping troops out of Iraq - remember no Spanish troops were involved in the actual attack on Saddam. The PSOE is hardly soft on ETA, but they could be viewed as a least worst option from ETA's point of view, compared to the PP. It is clear from the timing of the bombings that the terrorists, whether Al-Qaeda or ETA - and the balance of probabilities has swung back towards Al-Qaeda - intended to affect the outcome of the election.

As Abiola notes: They succeeded

The thing is, the notion that Al-Qaeda's dispute is merely with the US and of no concern to Europeans is a dangerous but comforting delusion. This is the default consensus among most of the European elite and is apparently shared by a majority of the Spanish electorate.

Al-Qaeda are quite explicit in opposing all freedom. They wish to establish a global Islamic caliphate under sharia law with no place for infidels. The US is merely the most obvious embodiment of freedom, the most powerful country and thus in the direct firing line. Should they succeed against the US or more likely the US be successful in repelling terrorist attacks, Al-Qaeda will simply turn to the next country in line. It may favour countries which are pro-US but those who are anti-US will still do.

There is no accomodation with such fantasists. You may take yourself out of the direct firing line but you had better hope that those in front of you will do the job you are not prepared to do yourself. Otherwise you're next.

Cui Bono?

A sickening cartoon on Indymedia Belgium shows Aznar coasting to victory in Sunday's elections on an "ETA NO -AZNAR SI" train as the carriage explodes behind him. The knowledge of the idiots who drew this apparently didn't extend as far as the fact that Aznar was retiring at this election. But that is hardly the point. There is a widely held view, reiterated by Backseat Driver Jon, - no loonie-leftie - that Aznar's PP have a vital interest in holding ETA responsible. The thinking goes that an Al-Qaeda attack would be seen as payback for Aznar supporting Bush and Blair on Iraq, an unpopular cause in Spain.

While I agree with Jon that Spanish opinion is "less cohesive" on Islamic terrorism, I think the view that the most of Spain would hold Aznar responsible for an Al-Qaeda attack is not a safe assumption. The logic of such a position is "You put us in harm's way!" which is the argument for appeasement, the corrollary being: "Let us ride the tiger and hope that he eats us last". This may turn out to be the majority Spanish view in the event of an Al-Qaeda claim of responsibility, but it is at least equally, perhaps more, plausible that such a claim would instead have a galvanising effect, similar to that which obtained in the US after 9/11. It is by no means certain that Spanish public opinion would follow the anti-war pundits in blaming Aznar ahead of the terrorists. Their anger might instead be directed at the evil perpetrators.

My view remains that it is likely to have been ETA. Such a terrorist group just needs to get lucky for the numbers killed to be as large as this. Everybody remembers the Omagh bomb, few people remember foiled bomb attacks prior or since that if successful would have caused similar or greater carnage. As Abiola notes, the fact that the bombs were detonated remotely and not by glory-seeking suicide bombers argues strongly against Al-Qaeda involvement, this is not just a "tactic" but an integral part of their twisted fantasy ideology.

I don't have any pet theories riding on this, I consider Al-Qaeda and ETA similarly despicable but the balance of probabilities strongly favours the Basque terror group as responsible.

Update: Looks like it may not be ETA. Three Morroccans and two Indians have been arrested, two further Spaniards of Indian descent are being questioned. This is great news, hopefully all the perpetrators can now be brought to account.

Simultaneous Attacks and Simultaneous Assessments

I'd just like to nail one canard about the Madrid bombings. That is the notion that it "must" have been Al-Qaeda because the tactic of several simultaneous explosions "bears the hallmarks" of an Al-Qaeda attack. The thing is, this is simply a tactic. Al-Qaeda have demonstrated how "useful" such a tactic is for their aim. There is no copyright on this idea. It's not like ETA have to apply for permission from Al-Qaeda to adopt that tactic. It would take only a minor modification to their MO to do so. The fact that such a tactic was used says nothing useful about the identity of the perpetrators. One tactic which would say something would be the use of suicide bombers.

It is somewhat ironic that there is a confluence of interests among fervent anti-war types and fervent pro-war types in favouring Al-Qaeda as the likely perpetrators. The likes of Mark Steyn and Charles Johnson are sure that this is the first step of an Islamofascist assault on Europe, while the anti-war left is keen to see this as some sort of payback for Aznar for supporting Bush.