Antonio Alonso Marcos
Professor at San Pablo-CEU University
It is no secret that we were all caught off guard by the announcement of the early elections. On 14 June I had the pleasure of moderating a debate on spanish foreign policy at my university between members of parliament of different political persuasions. Here are some of the proposals – and analyses – that were put forward that day.
The political moment
Although no one expected it, in reality it was not too early, as the elections were scheduled to be held in December at the latest. In other words, five months earlier. Something more significant would have been to accept Ramón Tamames’ proposal during the motion of censure, holding the elections at the same time as the municipal and regional elections, thus saving the public purse some good money. However, as we know, our political calculations are not the political calculations of our leaders, as the prophet Isaiah would say.
Once the elections have been held, two maps have been drawn up: one, that of election night, and the other, that of the investiture and governability pacts. Both are very interesting and offer a picture, not a still picture but a dynamic one, of where the national electorate is breathing and what the reactions of our representatives are.
Shared points of view
The debate was conducted in a friendly tone, far from the angry confrontation we usually see in the media. In reality, the proposals did not differ much from each other, it was more a question of nuances, except on one or two points. The war in Ukraine was the frame of reference to which the speakers constantly referred to stress that Spain is not a party to the conflict and that we will simply support Ukraine whatever decision it takes, be it to continue the war or to sit down and negotiate.
As for the EU, none of the participants overlooked the small detail that Spain has held the rotating presidency of the EU Council since 1 July, and that this circumstance will catch us in the midst of an election campaign. Will European issues be central in the run-up to the elections? They will certainly appear, but it seems that these issues have little appeal or appeal among voters, so they will be inescapable but not definitive. Thus, the three debaters alluded to the necessary “strategic autonomy of the EU”, although they disagreed on the content of this, as for some it was synonymous with protectionism of European production, of putting up trade barriers to products coming from abroad, while others understood it more in terms of security and defence, of not depending so much on our US partner.
Although the candidates for the White House are not yet clear, it seems that the American people will have to choose between Biden and Trump, “between Guatemala and Guatepeor” according to one of the speakers, although according to the other two it was clear that it would be better for Biden to win, given all the progress that the Democrat has brought and Trump’s unbridled populism.
The United States is crucial for our defence on European soil, but also on African soil, as we must not forget our concern about organised crime groups in the Sahel – where terrorism and all kinds of illicit trafficking are mixed – and about the events that may unfold in our neighbouring Morocco, especially in relation to Ceuta and Melilla. According to the guests, we must reach out to the Alaouite kingdom, because the more we have collaborated with it, the less migratory pressure there has been, and conversely, the more tension there has been, the more problems there have been in Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands. The Mediterranean was also discussed in the session, looking for ways to support democratic processes in the region.
A similar tenor was used to discuss Ibero-America, a subject on which there were major discrepancies, for obvious reasons. Moreover, one of the speakers stressed that the presence of Spanish companies in the continent was mainly due to privatisation processes carried out decades ago, while the others highlighted the wealth that “resilient democracies”, which have been severely judged from Spain, but which rather need our support, bring to the single-colour scenario.
When it came to Central Asia, all agreed on its strategic importance, not only because of its energy resources, but also because it should help stabilise a potentially very dangerous region. Not only because of the uncertainties generated by the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, which is riddled with terrorists, but also because of its relations with Russia, which has been strained by the invasion of Ukraine, and with China. This is, finally, the elephant in the room that was impossible not to mention. Indeed, while the focus is now on Ukraine, the big challenge for the coming years is how to manage our relationship with the Asian giant.
VOX was noticeably absent from the debate when it came to the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, as it is the only political party that is clearly against them. The rest take on the consensus on this issue.
As can be seen, foreign policy generates interest and also debate, although a series of state consensuses have been generated around certain issues.
© All rights reserved
