The inquiry into the Madrid bombings is re-igniting the row over the political handling of its aftermath, writes Paddy Woodworth
The political shockwaves from the bombs that killed 191 people in Madrid on March 11th continue to fracture the Spanish body politic. The fierce controversy over the clashing responses to the attacks by the government and the opposition, compounded by the general election four days later which dramatically reversed those roles, is once again at white heat.
It has been rekindled by a parliamentary commission that is revisiting the events of those extraordinary spring days, and has so far raised many more questions than it has answered. There is no Spanish word for GUBU, but there may be one by the time the commission reports - and even that deadline is disputed.
The Madrid inquiry was expected to focus on four questions: Firstly, had the security forces prepared for an Islamist terrorist attack? Secondly, did the centre-right Partido Popular (PP) government, led by José María Aznar, keep the public properly informed as the crisis unfolded, or did it manipulate information to maintain its lead over the opposition in the elections the following Sunday? This question arises because PP spokespersons kept insisting that the Basque terrorist group ETA was the prime suspect, when almost all the material evidence appeared to point to Islamists. The government stood to lose if Islamists were responsible, because Spanish public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to the PP's high-profile support for the invasion of Iraq.
Thirdly, did the centre-left Socialist Party (PSOE) opposition, led by José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, illicitly exploit suspicions that the government was withholding crucial facts, and sponsor the "text-message rebellion", which mobilised illegal anti-government demonstrations on Saturday 13th and arguably swung the election in its favour? And finally, how can Spain defend itself against a further attack?
However, in a Spain more bitterly divided than at any time since the Franco dictatorship, the inquiry, and its media coverage, has focused almost entirely on the first three questions. And, inevitably, they are being handled in a fiercely partisan fashion.
Nevertheless, light as well as heat has been generated so far. It has shone into places where many people would rather not look: for example, the relationship between politicians and the security forces, where the safety of citizens seems to come second to party political advantage. Some analysts are saying the commission's exposure of flaws in these pillars of democracy is beginning to shake the foundations of the state.
THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY suggestion so far has come from a PP spokesman, Jaime Ignacio del Burgo. He told the commission on Thursday that he now suspected "the attacks could have been avoided". He insinuated that "a monstrous conspiracy" within the Interior ministry had allowed the terrorists to proceed, "in order to undermine Spanish democracy". This nightmare scenario is based on claims by informers that they were ignored when they alerted members of the security forces to the bomb plot.
These officers were supposedly sympathetic to the PSOE, and knew that an Islamic bombing would damage the PP.
Along similar lines, the former director-general of the Spanish police, Agustín Díaz de Mera, claimed on Thursday that two of his senior officers "disloyally" passed information to the PSOE, between the bombings and the elections, which helped the opposition discredit the PP's insistence that ETA was responsible. Díaz de Mera, who is now a PP MEP, strenuously defended the information strategy of the then government, and said he believed, to this day, that ETA might have collaborated with the Islamists.
His successor as director-general, Víctor García Hidalgo, told the commission the same day that he saw "no basis, practical purpose or evidence whatsoever" to justify further investigation of ETA links to the bombings. While this view seems much more credible than Díaz de Mera's, it must be pointed out that García Hidalgo was, of course, appointed by the PSOE.
The impression that both senior police officers and their civilian directors are motivated by party political interest is being reinforced almost daily. This seems particularly unfortunate when the police seem to have done such a good job in pursuing and arresting the most likely suspects in the days after the massacre, while the government kept pointing dogmatically in the opposite direction.
There are good grounds for dismissing the wilder PP allegations as attempts to kick up dust to obscure embarrassing conclusions. Details of timing are disputed, but the solid facts given to the commission are building to confirm the view, held by most Spaniards, that the Aznar government deliberately played down the forensic evidence that pointed to Islamists, and grossly inflated the purely circumstantial indications that ETA might have been to blame. The revelation that the PP marginalised the military intelligence agency CNI, which pointed to Islamists from the outset, until after the elections, does not look good for Aznar.
However, this is a game with more than two teams, and the handling of the commission by the new PSOE government also demands scrutiny. The PSOE has been curiously reluctant to give the commission full access to relevant intelligence reports, and, more strangely still, is blocking demands by other parties to call key witnesses, including Aznar. The smaller parties on the commission accuse Zapatero, who preaches openness and transparency, of having done a secret deal with the PP because both parties have something to hide.
Naturally, the PP denies this but joins the smaller parties in demanding that all documents be released, alleging that the papers the government is keeping under wraps endorse the stand taken by Aznar's ministers. This controversy led to a bizarre sideshow during the week, when Aznar said that he had retained copies of all CNI documents from the period. That would be quite improper, and possibly illegal. The agency has demanded their return, but the implicit threat is evident.
Next week some of the most important witnesses, including the former PP interior minister, Ángel Acebes, will give evidence. But that may not be the end of it, because the smaller parties are pressing for more sessions after the obligatory August holiday break. Watch this space.