Defense and the two paths of Europe

It's no secret that the international order is becoming increasingly unpredictable. While the multilateral system around the United Nations has been in crisis for years, the events of the last five years have made this even more starkly clear.

The COVID-19 pandemic severely weakened the WHO and forced Europe to rethink its interdependence on third-party actors. The crimes against humanity committed by Russia in Ukraine and by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon have continued despite the international community's inaction. And we have witnessed, with worrying normalcy, a military escalation between Iran and Israel that, although the Trump administration denied it, could have constituted a casus belli.

In short, neither diplomacy nor the solutions inherent in a rules-based system have prevailed. Everything has been blown up. A perverse logic of the most powerful has taken hold, to which all principles, including previous alliances, are subordinated.

With all this, international relations have gained a central place in political debate, and different paths have emerged regarding how to respond to defense and security challenges, understood in the broadest sense: economic, energy, trade, etc. In Europe, two of these paths can basically be seen.

The first is to double down on NATO. Trump's strategy is clear: pressure European allies to at least match the United States' military spending. This will go as far as to raise the bar for the welfare state advocated by most EU members. In Catalonia, this strategy enjoys little or no popular support. Our country and the Basque Country, nations with a long anti-militarist tradition, already voted against ratifying NATO membership in 1986. And far from having gained popularity, I think the majority sentiment is to consider NATO a structure of the past, a shield that has little to do with the uncertain challenges of a new global scenario.

The second path is to strengthen the European framework. A perfectible space, in which not all our projected desires have been fulfilled, but which was built to ensure peace and which must pursue this objective. We cannot forget that the EU is a unique experiment in multi-state governance which, despite its shortcomings, constitutes the area on the planet where democracy, freedoms, human rights, and well-being enjoy the highest levels. Today we are talking about weapons, but we would like to say what is inaccurately attributed to one of the fathers of the Union, Jean Monnet: "If I had to rewrite the constitution of Europe, I would start with culture."

The lack of transparency of the PSOE is identical to that demonstrated by the PP when managing the Defense Ministry.

Given the European status quo's desire to maintain its infantilizing servitude to the United States' dictates, and the rise of the far right, which appears unabated, progressive forces must exert pressure within the European Union to consolidate its strategic autonomy, freed from the arbitrary decisions of the current US president. This will strengthen its economic, industrial, and energy independence, without renouncing the establishment of democratic alliances and the curbing of climate change. None of this will be possible unless the challenges and concerns of several member states (currently those in the east, last decade those in the south) are understood in a much more supportive manner.

The dismal performance of the Spanish government in recent weeks does not help to build this scenario. Last week, Pedro Sánchez signed a document at the NATO summit confirming the achievement of 5% of defense spending as a percentage of GDP. But the Cabinet argues that it will remain at a much lower level based on a calculation that NATO does not share. The fussing over figures to keep Trump happy is outrageous and all too reminiscent of what Felipe González, also a Socialist, did when he decided to let Spain join NATO, after having promised otherwise.

It's worth recalling, in the context of this debate, what the great British historian Tony Judt said in 2012, somewhat presciently: "So the choice we face now is not between capitalism versus communism, or the end of history versus the return of history, but between policies of social cohesion based on collective goals versus the erosion of society through the politics of fear." Exactly.

In the turbulent world we live in, hiding the truth is not only frivolous but also a serious lack of respect for the public. We denounce this irresponsibility on the part of Sánchez. Therefore, we at ERC have repeatedly asked the Spanish government to explain how much is spent on security and defense, and in which countries weapons are bought and sold. We have also asked for an explanation of how the Security and Defense Plan will impact Catalonia, whether it will have civilian applications, and whether it will be agreed upon with the economic and social fabric, which is familiar with what a good industrial policy is. Unfortunately, Sánchez has not given us an answer and will not submit this plan to a vote in Congress.

The PSOE's lack of transparency is mirrored by that demonstrated by the PP when it headed the Ministry of Defense. And the lack of direction and the lack of overcoming the NATO framework bodes ill in this new international context, which demands imagination, boldness, a far-sighted approach, and a shift away from talking to citizens as if talking to children.