Live with Ana Palacio

Ana Palacio became Spain’s first female foreign minister in 2002. During a period when Spain was part of the coalition fighting to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, she argued eloquently for maintaining strong ties with the U.S. The 3/11/04 bombings in Madrid unseated the government of prime minister Jose Maria Aznar of which she was a part. Since then, Palacio has argued just as eloquently that the European Union must not let anti- Americanism become the glue that holds it together. She was interviewed for TAE by British journalist John O’Sullivan and AEI scholar Michael Ledeen.

TAE: Who was hurt worst by the hasty withdrawal of Spanish troops from the coalition in Iraq—the U.S., Spain, or Iraq?

PALACIO: The people of Iraq gave us all a lesson in courage and responsibility in the elections last January. So they will endure.

But Spain’s image was damaged. The country is now viewed as erratic and inconsistent. The incoming Zapatero government went about things badly and impolitely. It gave no advance warning to anyone. It disregarded the time frame offered to the U.N. by Zapatero in his inaugural speech. And it left high and dry our E.U. partners, like Poland, as well as the U.S. At that point, the entire world realized that Spain did not deliver on its international commitments. My country had become unreliable.

The government not only rushed to pull out all of our troops, but soon afterwards prime minister Zapatero invited all coalition members to follow his lead, pull out their troops, and abandon Iraq. This is just one example of a capricious, fickle, and inconsistent Spanish foreign policy.

TAE: How should Europeans handle the influx of immigrants from the Islamic world?

PALACIO: We need a realistic policy on immigration that is geared to the labor market, cognizant of our need for immigrants given the aging of the European population, and also recognizes the contribution new Europeans can make to enriching our community. This does not mean that we lose the traits that make up our identity, or that we should fall into the trap of relativism. That is what ultimately led to the situations such as those seen recently in the Netherlands, where the presence of unassimilated immigrants weakens the nation.

TAE: Why are immigrants in Europe less likely to become assimilated than immigrants to the U.S.?

PALACIO: Europe has to adapt psychologically to no longer being a land of emigration. We are weighed down by our history and lack a future-oriented motivation, a clear common project. In contrast to the “American dream” that inspires all immigrants in the U.S. and encourages them to become stakeholders—with the realistic perspective that their son or daughter actually might become President some day—the common ambition of immigrants arriving in Europe is simply to take advantage of the social services. They do little to integrate.

TAE: Tony Blair is loved by American conservatives and despised by British conservatives. As a Spanish conservative, what is your view of him?

PALACIO: He will be remembered as one of the great leaders of our time, in a Europe where such leaders are not exactly plentiful.

TAE: How does conservatism in Spain, and Europe as a whole, differ from conservatism in the United States?

PALACIO: They do differ, yet they share a liberal outlook (in the European sense) which is ultimately grounded on trust in the individual and civil society, as opposed to trust in the collectivity and the state.

TAE: Many people believe that European agricultural subsidies have been harmful, increasing both budget costs and consumer cost, distorting European economic activity, and contributing to Third World poverty. When, if ever, will farm subsidies in Europe fade away?

PALACIO: The question of farm subsidies is something both the European Union and the United States still need to resolve. The current CAP system in Europe generates considerable dysfunctions. That said, our rural environment should not just be viewed in terms of farm production: It serves vital social functions, among them regional balance and environmental conservation.

TAE: Europe, and Spain in particular, is struggling to meet the emission requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. Do you see this as a major problem for your country, and for Europe as a whole? Might European economies be damaged by this?

PALACIO: It is true that the Kyoto Protocol is a challenge for the E.U. in general and Spain particularly. But let us not delude ourselves: Europe’s main problem in the economic terrain is our dwindling competitiveness overall, especially when compared to the U.S.

TAE: The European Constitution assiduously avoids mentioning the historical role of Christianity in Europe. France has banned the personal display of ostentatious religious symbols in its schools. Recently, the European Parliament rejected Rocco Buttiglione as commissioner for justice largely because of his personal religious beliefs. Has Europe slipped from neutrality into hostility toward religious belief?

PALACIO: Europe is going through a dangerous period of indecision, blurred memory, lack of future vision, and little sense of external reality. It is looking inwards as far as the future is concerned.

TAE: Does Turkey belong in the European Union? What does it need to do to be admitted?

PALACIO: I am in favor of the opening of talks with Turkey. Aside from any other considerations, it is in our historic and geostrategic interest as Europeans and Westerners.

TAE: You’ve warned that anti-Semitism is returning to Europe.

PALACIO: Anti-Semitism is a reality today, both in its classical form and in newer formats in which it has merged with anti-Americanism and anti-globalization. There have been attacks on Jewish cemeteries and synagogues in France and Spain. In 2002, the Star of David was displayed together with a swastika on the Web page of the Barcelona City Council. Also in Barcelona, a plaque in honor of Holocaust victims was vandalized. To raise money for a “human rights” program, the mayor of a small village in northern Spain sold T-shirts showing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon as a dragon eating the corpses of Palestinian children, while President Bush smiled approvingly. Another T-shirt on sale shows the American flag as a roll of toilet paper with the words “use me” written underneath.

TAE: Spain today has a strong democracy and a prosperous economy, with strong diplomatic and economic links to its former colonies. It’s now probably a more powerful presence on the world stage than at any time in the past 400 years. Why, at this moment, does Spain wish to dilute its national identity within a European state? PALACIO: First of all, an overwhelming majority of Spaniards do not perceive the European Union as a European state, or believe that our identity is going to be submerged to it. Europe is part of Spain’s history, and we have contributed as much as any other country to this story.

TAE: The E.U. has a flag, a currency, a parliament, and laws that take effect without amendment in all of the member states. Other groups that have these things are called nations. How come it’s not called a nation in this case?

PALACIO: The E.U. is a work in progress. Although the European Parliament has gained more powers, it is still not on a par with a national parliament. On the other hand, the currency is a big step forward and involves transferring parts of a nation’s sovereignty. Our aim as a conservative government in Spain was to move forward with European integration but retain a strong voice for Spain.

TAE: What happened to Spain on March 11, 2004? One theory is that Spanish voters were so affected by the bombing that they changed their ballots and voted out the government you were part of. The other theory is that the people had already made up their minds how they were going vote, and the bombs simply brought out new people mobilized by the terrorists.

PALACIO: Both theories are true to a certain extent. Citizens went to the polling stations in a state of shock, but in a democracy no account is taken of the motives or mindset or feelings of voters. What counts is the result.

All that matters today is the perception of how the bombing affected the vote. And the clear perception is that terrorists for the first time had managed to change the political outcome in a leading democratic country. This did not just happen by chance. The terrorist attacks were aimed at affecting the outcome of the election.

TAE: Does it surprise you that the political opinions of Spaniards were changed so much by the bombing?

PALACIO: It’s not a matter of being brave or not being brave. Prospective voters had been listening for a full year to the Socialist Party mantra that the foreign policy of our government under Aznar—especially our support of the U.S. during the Iraq crisis—was putting Spaniards at risk. This message was relayed until the day of the elections, together with infamous accusations and clear manipulations. The result was that many people approached the voting booth thinking, in a state of shock, “the Socialists told us that Aznar’s support of the U.S. was putting us at risk, and they were right.”

TAE: The general impression from America is that Zapatero’s government is anti American. Is that a fair impression?

PALACIO: Anti-Americanism is unfortunately popular, not just in Spain. And Zapatero is not the first European leader to play publicly on anti-Americanism to win votes.

For the Aznar government, our position was the only rational one: Spain, along with Britain, has a special transatlantic vocation due to its history in the Western hemisphere. Hence our interest in maintaining a privileged relationship with Washington. Spain cannot disregard the process of hemispheric integration in the Americas, nor the role played by Washington. Nor can Spain ignore the expanding Hispanic frontier in the United States. Spain can and should aspire legitimately to be the U.S.’s other European heritage.

TAE: But Zapatero isn’t pursing this special relationship, is he?

PALACIO: Our government under prime minister Aznar had ambitious plans for Spain, following centuries of historical inertia, and resources that had certainly not been used to the full. Zapatero has plunged Spain into Third World politics. He misguidedly believes that Spain cannot have both a strong transatlantic relationship and a voice in Europe. And he thinks that Spain should play second fiddle to France and Germany, where anti American sentiment is increasingly popular.

Zapatero’s government would like to have a good relationship with the U.S., of course; it’s not that they don’t want one. They just want it both ways: to have photo opportunities with U.S leaders, while at the same time supporting Westernhemisphere radicals like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Fidel Castro in Cuba. Zapatero’s government also is among the first to promote the notion of the E.U. as a counter-power to the U.S.

TAE: In this battle between countries like France, Germany, and Spain under Zapatero that want Europe to develop in opposition to the United States, against other countries (such as Britain, Spain under Aznar, and the newest members of the E.U.) that would like to maintain the close transatlantic relationship with the U.S., do you think the pro U.S. side can win?

PALACIO: It’s true that in Europe the big question is what European identity will be built on: Europe as a counterweight to the United States, or a Europe based on values and principles that we share with the United States. Right now, we are at a low point in transatlantic friendship, but I’m optimistic. I have no doubt whatsoever that our future lies in a Euro-Atlantic community.

My message to the United States is this: Never forget to empower your allies, because it’s very difficult today to be an ally of the United States in today’s Europe.

TAE: What happens if the anti-Americans win?

PALACIO: I am loathe to engage in political fiction. I am clear on one thing though: Many of us in Europe will fight with all our strength to make sure this does not happen. I think that we have the assets and a sense of history on our side to prevail.