The Diplomat
The government has avoided going into detail in its written replies to a series of questions posed by the opposition regarding the reception in Spain of Polisario Front leader Brahim Ghali on humanitarian grounds and the diplomatic crisis with Morocco.
Thus, despite the opposition’s request for specific details on the circumstances surrounding the decision to welcome Ghali and how he entered Spain, the government has not gone further in its answers than what is known to date.
“Mr Ghali’s entry into Spain is the result of a decision taken due to his serious medical condition and devoid of any political connotation. The entry took place with the documentation in his name”, is the brief reply, to which Europa Press had access, with which he responds to the PP deputy Eloy Lamata.
The PP had expressly asked who had “accredited and authorised the entry into Spain of the Polisario Front leader”, who received treatment against COVID-19 in a hospital in Logroño from 18 April to 1 June, and how he had “passed the mandatory border controls” and who had accompanied him.
With these same words, the government also responded to the ‘popular’ Valentina Martínez Ferro and Marta González Vázquez, who had asked the reasons why Ghali was admitted “on the sly and with a false passport”.
They also asked the government why it considered it “convenient not to inform Morocco of his presence in Spanish territory”. To this last question, the government merely responded by pointing out that ‘after Mr Ghali’s entry into Spain, the diplomatic services of Spain and Morocco discussed this case on numerous occasions’, without clarifying at what level the contacts took place.
For her part, the PP spokeswoman in Congress, Cuca Gamarra, expressly asked whether the government had provided Ghali with “any means of transport to be transferred to La Rioja after landing at Zaragoza airport”, “who made the decision as to which hospital he should go to” and the criteria taken into account for this decision.
“The decision to admit Mr Ghali to San Pedro Hospital (in Logroño) was a decision of the Spanish Government based on health reasons,” the reply states. “The transfer from Zaragoza was carried out by ambulance”, it merely adds, without further clarification.
As for the crisis with Morocco, which Rabat clarified that it is not motivated by the Ghali case but by the government’s position on Western Sahara, the Spanish government’s answers do not give any clues as to what is being done to resolve it.
Thus, to Junts’ question on ‘what measures the government is going to take to repair its diplomatic relations with Morocco’, the answer is limited to referring to the interventions of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arancha González Laya, in Congress on 26 May and 9 June.
Likewise, the government is elusive in its response to a question posed by Ciudadanos in relation to Ceuta and Melilla after the massive influx of migrants into the first of the two autonomous cities on 17 and 18 May.
Inés Arrimadas’ party expressly asked the government whether it was planning to “block funding from the Neighbourhood, Development and Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) to Morocco” after noting that the country could access some 1.5 billion euros of the 79.5 billion euros for the next seven years with which this instrument is endowed.
Likewise, Cs deputies María Carmen Martínez Granados and María Muñoz Vidal asked ‘what other actions the Government plans to take, both bilaterally and within EU institutions, to ensure that Morocco respects the Spanish borders of Ceuta and Melilla’.
In its response, the government limits itself to pointing out that it ‘considers the implementation of the NDICI to be a priority in its relations with the Southern Neighbourhood’, which includes Morocco, and stresses that this instrument ‘is called upon to be a fundamental part of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum’.
“Spain proposes the use of funds earmarked for migratory cooperation as a tool for developing projects and initiatives of mutual interest and for reciprocal benefit”, the Spanish government adds, without at any time clarifying whether it is considering blocking the arrival of funds to Morocco.
As for the borders of Ceuta and Melilla, it limits itself to expressing its gratitude for ‘the unanimous response of the EU institutions and EU member states in which they emphasised that the external borders of the two autonomous cities are EU borders’.
