Far from being a mere slip of the tongue, the episode revealed the extent to which BRICS have established themselves as increasingly influential players in international politics and economics. The fear aroused by those words was no accident; it reflected the growing perception that this bloc represents a direct challenge to the established international order.

The informal BRICS alliance was formed in 2009, when several emerging economies decided to coordinate their efforts to strengthen their financial, economic, and political cooperation. Brazil, Russia, India, and China formed the group, which was joined by South Africa in 2010. Since then, the bloc has steadily increased its influence, becoming a central player in the international system. It currently represents about 50% of the world’s population and approximately 40% of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity.

Today, BRICS is once again at the center of global debate. For those who failed to understand the significance of Trump’s words, or the reasons for the nervousness they provoked, it is essential to pause and analyze exactly what this organization is and why its rise is generating growing concerns about the international balance of power. The question, in this context, is inevitable: why is this institution attracting so much attention today?

After the end of World War II, the United States and the major Western democracies promoted a framework of rules, institutions, and relationships that is now known as the “liberal international order.” This system was based on liberal principles—both political and economic—and cooperation among states through multilateral organizations designed to ensure stability, growth, and collective security.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the bipolar system, the international scene underwent a profound transformation. Washington emerged as the sole global superpower, a situation that led Francis Fukuyama to formulate his thesis of the “end of history.”

Over the last few decades, Uncle Sam has maintained its hegemony through the liberal international order, relying on political and military alliances, shared norms, and universalist values, with institutions such as NATO and the IMF serving as fundamental pillars. This framework has guaranteed the hegemony of the dollar and its so-called “exorbitant privilege,” which has allowed the United States to borrow on more favorable terms than any other country, finance its deficits without immediate risk, and consolidate its debt as the safest asset in the global financial system.

To fully understand this analysis, it is essential to add another key element of the Western system’s success: the SWIFT network. This global payment infrastructure connects most of the world’s banks and acts as an intermediary in international transfers, the vast majority of which are conducted in dollars. In this way, the dollar has become the dominant currency worldwide. However, despite its power and influence, the liberal international order is beginning to show increasingly evident cracks.

Over time, a series of events have contributed to weakening this system. The financial crises of recent decades have undermined confidence in Western elites’ ability to manage the global economic order, while the U.S. strategy of shaping the world according to its own interests has fostered a coalition of states that reject its hegemony. Similarly, specific episodes such as Brexit in 2016, President Obama’s blockade of the WTO Appellate Body—considered the guardian of free trade—and Donald Trump’s return to the White House have intensified doubts about the soundness and legitimacy of this system.

Added to this context is the use of the dollar as a tool of political pressure, particularly visible in the sanctions imposed on Russia, a move that has reinforced the perception that the U.S. currency also functions as a geopolitical instrument.

This set of factors has led many powers to seek alternatives that reduce their dependence on the system dominated by the U.S. In this scenario of a weakening liberal international order, recent moves by BRICS are perceived as a direct threat to Washington, once again placing the bloc at the center of global debate.

As already noted, the BRICS is an informal intergovernmental organization whose main objective is to increase its global influence and offer alternatives to Western-dominated institutions. Since its creation, the bloc has progressively expanded its reach and sought to reduce its dependence on the U.S.-led international financial system.

A key step in this strategy was the 2014 creation of the New Development Bank, aimed at financing development projects in emerging economies, as well as the Contingent Reserve Arrangement, a $100 billion fund designed to protect member countries from financial crises. These initiatives are perceived as direct challenges to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, essential pillars of the liberal international order.

Added to this institutional progress is the growing economic weight of the bloc. BRICS countries have established themselves as one of the main drivers of global growth, accounting for a significant share of industrial production and strategic resources.

It is in this context that BRICS found an historic opportunity to challenge the rules of the international economic game. In addition to developing their own institutions, in 2018 BRICS introduced a new international payment mechanism called “NIPS,” later known as BRICS Pay. Although the project progressed slowly for several years, it regained prominence in October 2024 during the 16th BRICS Summit, held that same year. On this occasion, the member countries formally presented and endorsed what was now called BRICS Pay.

BRICS Pay aims to facilitate international transactions in local currencies and reduce the centrality of the dollar. The system would rely on DCMS, a decentralized messaging network developed in Russia and distributed among member countries, allowing each state to control its own financial infrastructure and trade without using the dollar, thereby weakening its dominance. At the same time, the absence of a hegemonic actor within the system aims to foster more balanced cooperation and potentially reduce geopolitical tensions.

This project represents a direct challenge to both the United States and the SWIFT system and, by extension, to the liberal international order. If BRICS countries succeed in consolidating the success of BRICS Pay in the future, we could be witnessing a notable change in the world order as we know it today.

However, significant obstacles remain between ambition and reality. Although an initial prototype of BRICS Pay has been presented in Moscow, and it has been suggested that it could be operational by 2026, the path to a fully functional system is complex. The experience of the European Union shows that financial integration requires time, coordination, and a high degree of economic convergence.

Furthermore, BRICS countries have profound differences in their levels of development, monetary policies, and strategic priorities, which makes it difficult to build a stable and cohesive framework. Similarly, despite their growing economic weight, their global political influence remains limited and, for the time being, it is insufficient to displace Western primacy.

Even so, the bloc’s rapid rise in a brief time has altered the international balance and raised fundamental questions about the future of the global system. The central question is whether BRICS countries will succeed in consolidating themselves as a real alternative to the liberal order led by the United States or whether their challenge will remain, at least for now, a symptom of an increasingly fragmented and multipolar world.

Ana Lorenzo López is a geopolitical analyst currently collaborating with The Political Room, where she writes in-depth political and strategic analysis on international affairs. Views expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

BRICS: The Emerging Bloc That Threatens the Liberal International Order was originally published on Global Security Review.

In Washington policy and political circles, the former President’s comments are met with both shock and disdain. The familiar tropes about the indispensability of the Western alliance and the civilizational connection with Europe are trotted out to defend NATO. In the Pentagon, there is even an optimistic belief that Europe is the security partner of future expeditionary missions around the world.

While Trump may talk like a shock jock, what he says about NATO and Europe hold true. Unless some tough love is imposed on the Europeans, American taxpayers will foot Europe’s security bill indefinitely. What Europe needs to understand is that America is changing, and with it Europe’s free pass is getting rescinded.

The Demographic Transition

One reason the Trans-Atlantic political and military alliance will change is the demographic transition in both the United States and Europe. In the US, by about 2045, citizens not of European extraction become a slim majority. Surveys of the next generation show that the affinity for Europe and with traditional American foreign policy imperatives is shrinking. The younger generation’s position on the Palestine-Israel conflict is a case in point. Latinos, Asians, and black Americans do not have emotional ties to Europe. They are, therefore, less inclined to tolerate and support the subsidizing of European defense efforts.

Instead, much like Trump, they will call on Europe to pay its bills. Europe, however, cannot pay those bills since it is an aging society with a large welfare state. As Table 1 shows, major European societies are rapidly aging. Not only that, but their median age is also going to rise to the extent that they will have a hard time fielding women and men of a fighting age.

 Table 1

Source:  Data retrieved from UN Population Revision 2019. (These numbers do not account for the recent population transfer from Ukraine to Russia or to the millions of Ukrainian refugees now in other parts of Europe who are unlikely to return.)

These numbers paint a bleak future. The nations listed above have the largest and most capable armed forces among NATO. In short, they all have greying populations and, by 2030, except for Turkey, will have a median age that is greater than 40. Italy, for example, is in serious demographic trouble with a median age of 50.8. Spain and Greece also have a median age of nearly 50. Worse, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Spain are all going to see a major decline in their populations. The priority of these countries is focused on meeting the social needs of their populations—something which is very expensive and can only come at the cost of reduced defense expenditure.

The other big problem for the Europeans is finding people who are willing to join the armed forces. After the Cold War, most European countries eliminated conscription. Reintroducing it would be political suicide for even the most conservative politician. Thus, while German Prime Minister Olof Schulz has committed 100 billion euros to defense modernization, he cannot realistically bring about force expansion without bringing back conscription. Further, 100 billion euros are not primarily going to buy more weapons but, instead, refurbish and modernize the existing force, much of which is mothballed.

The fact that the European nations lack manpower and the fact that rebuilding the forces will be expensive leads to the modest size of the militaries of the major NATO countries (as shown in Table 2). The question then arises, how many troops and weapons can these nations realistically field in modern combat? The answer is very few as these countries are likely to be casualty averse given their shrinking and aging demographics.

Table 2: Cuts in Force Levels of Major European Nations

Source: The Military Balance [IISS: London], 1972, 2017, and 2023 editions.

The Two Percent Myth

The other myth that Europe must stop hyping is that of how these countries are going to reach 2 percent of GDP in their defense spending. A remilitarization of Europe would require the Germans to cross the 2 percent threshold, but, by the end of 2022, the German government was admitting that it is unlikely to raise defense expenditure to 2 percent of GDP.

Table 3: NATO Defense Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP, 2023

Source: Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2023), NATO Communique, July 7, 2023.

            The news is not all bad. Those NATO member-states who most fear Russia, or, in the cases of Greece and Turkey, are spending the required 2 percent of GDP on defense. However, except for the United Kingdom, the further geographically from Russia a NATO member-state gets, the less the country spends on defense.

Table 4: NATO Nations Spending Two Percent of GDP on Defense

Source: Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2014–2023), NATO Communique, July 7, 2023.

With only a third of NATO member-states contributing 2 percent of GDP, it begs the question to what end? Estonia, for example, has a population is 1.3 million. Is 2 percent of Estonia’s small GDP a meaningful contribution to the Continent’s collective defense? Latvia, similarly, has 1.9 million citizens. Lithuania has 2.79 million citizens. In practical terms, this means that for credible militarization the rich and populous states of Europe need to reach a similar level of defense expenditures.

Most NATO nations intend to raise their defense expenditure to 2 percent by 2026. Italy and Spain expect to reach it by 2028 and 2029, respectively. This is, however, a medium-term projection which does not consider the state of the economy. Neither does it explain where funding will come from. The social democracies of Europe are unlikely to agree to a transfer of resources from social welfare programs to defense expenditures. In fact, with rapidly aging populations the cost of elderly care will grow.

The other alternative, raising taxes, is unpopular in European societies, which already carry a heavy individual tax burden. Further, in some countries, notably Britain, the prevailing mood is to cut taxes, making it unfeasible to ask the citizenry to agree to a tax increase to fund defense expenditures. The question arises, therefore, where will the money come from to pay for new weapons, the development of a defense infrastructure, and the intake of more troops to boost larger military formations?

A European Nuclear Deterrent

 One way out is for Europe to field a Euro-centric nuclear umbrella. Talk is already ongoing as some suggest the French nuclear force transform into one requiring joint authority to permit employment. The British nuclear force, since 1962, has been committed to the protection of NATO members.

One way to achieve this integration painlessly would be to state which missions fell under the purview of the French or British nuclear authority and which would be covered by the joint command. Thus, a French decision to use a tactical nuclear weapon in response to a 9/11-style terror attack, for example, would be the country’s sovereign right while a Russian assault would fall under the category of a jointly authorized strike. NATO member states would contribute to the cost of maintaining and fielding the force—perhaps increasing its size and capability.

One can also speculate on whether other NATO states may decide to cross the nuclear Rubicon given the changed security environment on the continent. Sweden and Poland would certainly fall into this category given their fears of Russian expansionism. If this happens, it is well within the scope of nonproliferation laws since countries are allowed to leave the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty if their core security interests are threatened (The problem for the US, however, is how to prevent non-Western states from taking a similar step).

While this may compensate for the inability to field adequate forces it would certainly meet with considerable opposition from the peace groups in Europe and the general population which is wary of nuclearization.   Which then brings the issue back to the need for conventional militarization.

Fielding capable militaries that can defend Europe and project power in alliance with the United States requires NATO member-states to make hard choices about spending and compulsory military service. For the reasons cited above that is unlikely. For the United States, therefore, the best course of action is to redefine its commitment to Europe and let the continent make the diplomatic and political compromises needed to bring about regional stability.

For those in the Pentagon who think Europe is a partner to help maintain global security, it is time to look for new security alliances. The evidence is clear. Europe has neither the funds nor the manpower to be a partner of the United States.

Amit Gupta was on the faculty of the USAF Air War College and is now a Senior Advisor on Peace and Conflict Resolution to the Forum of Federations, Ottawa. The views in this piece are his. He may be contacted at agupta1856@gmail.com.

Is Trump Right About Europe? was originally published on Global Security Review.

These trends are particularly evident in Europe, where elections, treaties, and other events will reshape the continent. Before the end of 2018, the Italian government and the European Union were locked in a dispute over Italy’s budgetary plans. The European Commission sharply criticized the spending plans due to concerns that Italy’s approximately $3 trillion in debt combined with higher public spending could lead to a banking crisis that could spread to other countries in the Eurozone. While Rome did pass a revised budget to appease E.U. officials in Brussels, the ordeal has sewed divisions within Italy’s populist coalition government which are likely to persist throughout 2019. Tensions between Rome and Brussels will also continue, and possibly escalate.

The United Kingdom is scheduled to formally withdraw from the European Union on March 29, 2019. However, no agreement has been approved by the U.K. parliament that would avert a potentially catastrophic “no-deal” or “hard” Brexit. British Prime Minister Theresa May has come under considerable criticism from within her party over the tentative agreement her government negotiated with the E.U., but no alternative plans have been put forth. Regardless of the outcome, the U.K. will continue to strengthen bilateral relations with E.U. member states such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland.

In May, European Parliamentary elections will take place, while E.U. member states will appoint a new President of the European Commission in October. Despite a rise in nationalist and euro-skeptic parties, pro-European factions are expected to maintain overall control. A divided political landscape will make it difficult for the E.U. to implement any significant reforms. Furthermore, E.U. member states are divided when it comes to fiscal policy. Southern states like Italy, Portugal, and Spain are pushing for higher spending and greater risk-sharing, whereas northern states led by Germany are calling for greater fiscal responsibility in Frankfurt.

Ongoing Political Divisions in the E.U. and its Member States

E.U. member states after the U.K. withdrawal) to focus inwards. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that her current term will be her last and resigned as leader of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) Party. The CDU elected Annegret Kramp-Karrenbaur as party leader in the latter part of 2018. However, the party is divided over a range of policy positions. Furthermore, the CDU’s coalition partner is facing an identity crisis of its own, which has already weakened the coalition government. Further disagreements and intra-coalition infighting could lead to early elections in Germany.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron’s institutional and economic reforms have fueled substantial, and in some cases, violent opposition. Large-scale protests have erupted throughout France. 2019 will see continued opposition to Macron’s reforms, opposition stoked by groups on both the far-right and the far-left ends of the political spectrum. Some of Macron’s economic reforms will succeed, but French citizens will be increasingly vocal in their rejection of his attempts to revitalize the French economy.

Domestic political concerns will require greater attention from both Paris and Berlin, decreasing both powers from critical external affairs. Political divisions will hamper initiatives to achieve greater strategic autonomy through the implementation of increased European military integration and the promotion of the Euro over the U.S. Dollar as the global reserve currency. Therefore, it is unlikely these major initiatives will see substantial progress in 2019.

Trade and China

Trade will be a significant area of focus. If the U.S. imposes higher tariffs on European-manufactured vehicles, for instance, approximately 10% of total U.S.-E.U. trade will be affected. In such a scenario, the E.U. would be forced to respond in kind, leading to a greater rift in transatlantic relations. Automobile tariffs would disproportionately affect the German auto industry, which manufactures one in every three cars produced in Europe. However, trade disputes will not lead to the collapse of the transatlantic alliance, as both the U.S. and E.U. have concerns over unfair Chinese trade practices.

Aside from trade, Europe has other concerns with China. Led by the governments in Berlin and Paris, policymakers across Europe are increasingly wary over Beijing’s economic activity on the continent. As a result, Europe has begun to exclude China from investing in critical infrastructures such as ports and telecommunications networks. China filed suit against the E.U. in the WTO, arguing that Beijing should be treated as a market economy. The case will come to a resolution in 2019, and the outcome will have a significant impact on the ongoing trade dispute between the U.S., the E.U., and China.

The complicated bureaucratic system of rules and regulations, however, put poorer or smaller member states at an economic disadvantage. As such, these states are more welcoming to Chinese investment and lending. Those states that are receptive to Chinese economic activity in Europe will likely continue to lobby against Berlin And Paris. The European bloc’s position towards China will be ambiguous, leading to more vocal action by those states that are concerned about China’s economic activities.

Escalating Tensions Between Russia and the U.S.

The relationship between Russia and the United States will continue to deteriorate. The U.S. is set to formally withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which bans intermediate-range missiles. Washington has cited Moscow’s noncompliance with the treaty as the justification for its withdrawal. The collapse of the INF treaty will heighten tensions in Eastern Europe, leading to a military buildup. This will be particularly visible in Poland and Romania, both of which will continue to lobby the U.S. for increased military commitments. Moscow will continue to build up its military forces in Kaliningrad, and the Crimea, both of which will likely play host to Russian intermediate-range missiles should the U.S. decide to deploy its own in Europe.

U.S. discussions with Poland regarding a possible permanent deployment of U.S. troops will continue throughout 2019. The Kremlin, citing what it perceives as “NATO-encirclement” will maintain, or even increase its efforts to interfere in the domestic politics of European states through malign activity in cyberspace, possible covert actions, and support for Euro-skeptic and nationalist factions across the E.U. The European parliamentary elections in May will provide Moscow with an opportunity to bolster the ranks of nationalist and Euro-skeptic groups, further sewing divisions within the E.U.

It is also possible that Moscow will open a military base in Belarus, as had previously been hinted by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. However, Lukashenko has made increasing overtures to the E.U. and the U.S., which could lead to increased hostility from Moscow. Russia’s efforts to undermine the integrity of NATO and the E.U. will be particularly visible in the Balkan states of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Macedonia.

High Stakes for Ukraine as the Kremlin Deals With Domestic Challenges of its Own

Ukraine will face considerable challenges throughout 2019. Both the TurkStream and NordStream 2 natural gas pipelines are set to become active. The pipelines will circumvent Ukraine, providing Moscow with enormous economic leverage over Kiev. Ukraine will be deprived of substantial transit fees that it will now lose as the two pipelines exclude Ukraine from Russia’s natural gas supply lines.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have deteriorated in the aftermath of Russia’s seizure of three Ukrainian Navy vessels in the Sea of Azov, and tensions are expected to continue throughout 2019. The conflict in Eastern Ukraine will continue, and Ukraine is set to hold presidential elections in March. Depending on the outcome, negotiations could reopen between Moscow and Kiev, however, it is unlikely the two parties will come to a resolution. It is in Russia’s interest to maintain a state of low-grade or frozen conflict in Eastern Ukraine, which effectively prevents the former Soviet republic from joining NATO.

Russia, however, will face its own domestic challenges in 2019. The Kremlin has announced controversial economic reforms, including increasing the retirement age, raising the value-added tax (VAT), and imposing new taxes on certain consumer products and the tourism sector. The reforms are designed to bolster the government’s revenue but have generated considerable backlash from Russians across the country. It is the working class that will be hardest hit by the measures, which are due to come into effect this month. As such, there is likely to be a degree of social unrest. Meaningful changes are unlikely, however, as there is presently no viable opposition party capable of threatening Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hold on power.

Overall, 2019 will be a year of volatility in Europe. Diplomatic, trade, and economic disagreements will persist between Europe and the United States, and within Europe itself. Tensions between Russia and NATO heighten anxiety for Eastern European states, which will lead to a buildup of military capabilities on both sides.

Political Uncertainty Will Plague Europe Throughout 2019 was originally published on Global Security Review.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 left Spain scrambling to reassemble a broken economy and combat soaring unemployment. European austerity measures and Catalonian dreams of independence have since occupied all of Madrid’s bandwidth and effectively back-seated Spanish foreign policy for over a decade. With the rise of Pedro Sánchez and the wounds of the financial crisis healing, Madrid has turned its attention back to Brussels and is ready to assume the role of a leading power in Europe. 

With the unexpected departure of now Former Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, the heavily pro-European Socialist Party (PSOE) has returned to power with a decidedly European agenda. In the months following the vote of no confidence that unseated Rajoy and installed Pedro Sánchez, the new Prime Minister embarked on a grand tour of Europe to court Spain’s closest partners in an effort to drum up support for Spain’s new European agenda.

During a visit to Paris, Sánchez spent several hours with President Emmanuel Macron discussing the French leader’s ambitious Eurozone reform project, from which Spain and other Southern European nations heavily impacted by the euro’s failings stand to benefit. As Rome embarks on a decidedly eurosceptic agenda for financial reform and migration policy of the E.U., Madrid is well-positioned to reclaim the mantle of leadership of the Southern bloc of E.U. member states.

Underscoring this new role, in June, Sánchez offered the ship Aquarius, carrying refugees from Northern Africa that were denied access at both Italian and Maltese ports, the opportunity to dock in Valencia. The Sánchez administration made clear that La Moncloa would carefully and thoroughly review each migrant for refugee status and provide them full protection under the law.

Sánchez’s actions not only signaled Spain’s willingness to take on a more active role but also rekindled the debate over E.U. migration policy and became the main topic of focus at the subsequent European Council meetings, held a few weeks later.

Spain has also taken a slightly more vocal role in debates over NATO defense spending, refusing to increase its military expenditure. The Sánchez administration argued that its contribution to NATO is not limited to its defense budget but comprises its considerably large aid, development, and human rights initiatives as well.

Though the government maintained a respectful tone of disagreement — wary of provoking an unnecessary conflict with Washington — it is a notable shift in the rhetoric Spain has traditionally used with Europe’s closest ally. The notably more vocal and engaged Sánchez administration suggests a more active Spanish presence on the world stage.

As the United Kingdom prepares to withdraw from the European Union and Eastern European states continue to butt heads with Brussels, Spain’s position as a large and active pro-European voice in the E.U. is a welcome prospect. It is also an opportunity — one that Madrid should approach with vigor and enthusiasm.

Seizing the Mantle of Leadership Under Sánchez

Spain is a unique outlier in Europe these days—it has no eurosceptic or far-right parties in Congress, its political leadership remains enthusiastically pro-European, and it has a welcoming domestic attitude towards immigration.

Sánchez’s PSOE is also one of just three social democratic parties in power in E.U. states, alongside Portugal’s PSD and Germany’s SPD. This leaves Madrid in a position with great potential to influence European policy and claim its place amongst Paris and Berlin as a leading European power within the EU.

Given Prime Minister Sánchez’s prior working experience within European Union institutions, his fluency in English and French, and the appointment of strong and respectable cabinet members, in particular Foreign Minister Josep Borrell, there is considerable room for engagement with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel to advance European reforms and take on a leading role in European foreign policy.

Both Spain and Portugal maintain strong, positive diplomatic ties to Latin America, where the EU has recently shifted its attention, opening the door for trade negotiations with MERCOSUR after finalizing a new free trade agreement with Mexico in April. As Lisbon shares a strong, pro-European attitude and views Spain as its closest working partner in the EU, Spain can expect to enjoy the collective weight of Iberia backing its European agenda and policy initiatives.

Spain also maintains an active presence in the Sahel region of Northern Africa and is a member of the Western Mediterranean Forum. Commonly referred to as the 5+5 Dialogue, it brings together the European five — Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, and Malta — with the North African states of Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya.

The dialogue aims to provide a space to “discuss subjects of topical interest for the region and to identify new areas for practical cooperation.” As terrorism and forced migration continue to plague the Sahel and Central Saharan regions, Spain should increase its diplomatic and security engagement with its partners in Mali, Morocco, and Mauritania.

With Brussels still hamstrung on European migration policy, it is incumbent upon Spain to engage with its partners in the Mediterranean to lead European efforts to strengthen North African rule of law and economic development. This could be done most effectively by providing civil support for elections monitoring and establishing working groups at both the national and local levels in the region. In particular, Spain should boost its support for the democratization and economic development of Tunisia, the sole surviving democracy of the Arab Spring, which could serve as a politically stable economic anchor for its neighbors.

As the United States withdraws its support for the advancement of democracy and human rights, Spain should also take the opportunity to leverage its strong human rights record, and take a more active role, both individually and within the framework of the United Nations. Here, Madrid can again leverage its relations with Ibero-American states, many of which are also strong supporters of the UN, human rights, and democratic principles. 

By working closely with its Latin American allies, especially within the scope of collective principles and values, Spain and Portugal can begin to forge a new transatlantic alliance with Latin America. Greater cooperation along these lines would not only help Brussels win new allies to preserve the liberal world order from which it has benefitted, but also win Madrid greater influence in both continents as a focal point in the relationship.

Spain has also developed a strong working relationship with China. As a recent paper from the leading Spanish think tank, Real Instituto Elcano pointed out, technological collaboration has become a major component of Sinohispanic relations. Spain should encourage further collaboration within the framework of European collective policy towards China and develop a joint strategy with Beijing for future scientific and technological collaboration.

Capitalizing upon stronger bilateral ties, Madrid can then better position itself to negotiate with China over issues of broader concern to the European Union, such as combatting climate change, encouraging multilateralism, and supporting E.U.-Chinese collaboration on the JCPOA and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Sánchez and his successors might also find a willing partner in Beijing to advance its own agenda for economic development and stabilization in Northern Africa given the high level of foreign direct investment (FDI) that Xi’s administration has funneled into African development projects.

By developing a stronger working relationship with Beijing, Madrid may also find itself better positioned to check Chinese human rights violations and security-compromising FDI in Europe. In any case, Spain will need a more comprehensive strategy to address the world’s largest economy and rising global power.

Cultivating Staying Power for Spain

For all the potential for evolution into one of Europe’s leading powers, there is still the risk of Spain devolving into internal crisis. The issue of Catalonian independence is far from resolved, and political leaders are divided on how to address it.

There is also the potential for Spain to fall back into financial chaos if issues over Eurozone reform are not addressed in time for the next global economic shockwave. Yet Spain remains the best candidate for the vacancy left by the United Kingdom and Italy in the European triumvirate.

For Spain to cultivate staying power in the role, however, Sánchez will need to work closely and assertively with Macron to address Eurozone reform and establish greater solidarity with the EU states most affected by the last financial crisis. It will also have to demonstrate a willingness to compromise with the Visegrad states over issues of ongoing integration.

Madrid should also continue to opt into organizations for greater defense cooperation and collectivization such as PESCO and the European Intervention Initiative to gain influence and encourage other EU states to follow suit.

At the moment, Spain, like Portugal remains inoculated against eurosceptic right-wing political extremism that has plagued Germany and France due to the strong living memories of life under the Salazar-Caetano and Franco dictatorships. While this buttresses Spain’s leadership credibility, Madrid should not become complacent. After all, only a few years ago it was nearly unthinkable that Germany would become host to an active and growing far-right, eurosceptic movement. 

Short of Brussels developing political savvy in communicating with the wider European public overnight, politicians from all Spanish parties should continue to engage in public diplomacy efforts to engage the Spanish public with the rest of Europe and help make European Union institutions, Spanish representation, and policymaking at the EU level more transparent.

As Spain emerges as a third leading power in the European Union, it should seek to actively expand its influence within and beyond Europe. Madrid must not shy away from the role of leader but embrace the opportunity to redefine its place within Europe and the world to secure its future and preserve the European project.

The New European Triumvirate: Spain as a Leading Power in the European Union was originally published on Global Security Review.

Summary

• Madrid takes immediate control of its institutions and sets early regional elections for December 21.
• If the unionist forces prevail, they’ll fight to form a united front, because they’ve little in common with each other beyond their desire to stay in Spain.
• If secessionists win, as most polls indicate, they will need to determine whether or not to push ahead with secession, potentially risking a dangerous confrontation with the Spanish state, or disappoint a large part of their electorate by entering into negotiations with Madrid.
• In an ideal situation, the catastrophe would open the door for a discussion about Spain’s political and territorial model, similar to the one who followed the end of Franco’s dictatorship.

A couple of weeks following the election, which took place October 1, Madrid responded to Catalonia’s subsequent declaration of independence by dissolving the Catalan government, taking immediate control of its institutions and calling early regional elections for December 21. But Catalan society is broken, and also the political and emotional distance between the Catalan nationalists and the Spanish trade unionists so high, that the vote alone won’t end the region’s issues. The gap that separates the nationalists out of unionists raises questions regarding Spain’s future.

The nation which managed to construct a democracy following the conclusion of a dictatorship in the late 1970s seems disoriented as it endures its most significant crisis in four decades. Opposing Views of the Identical Event. Catalans were divided between nationalists and unionists long before last month’s referendum. The events of October 1 only created more controversy.

The nationalists argue that the vote, which occurred against all the odds, confirmed Catalonia’s desire. They also see the police crackdown on voters as evidence of Spain’s hostility towards Catalonia. The Spanish government and unionist voters, and on the other hand, assert that the referendum is illegal, that it lacked a proper electoral roll along with a valid electoral commission.

[bs-quote quote=”In an ideal situation, the catastrophe would open the door for a discussion about Spain’s political and territorial model, similar to the one who followed the end of Franco’s dictatorship.” style=”style-5″ align=”center”][/bs-quote]

From their viewpoint, the vote confirmed only that regional leaders are willing to violate the law to achieve their political goals. Although the interpretations of what happened differ broadly, there is no denying the fluctuations the vote produced. Before October 1 the proud and provocative–though internally fragmented—separatist government headed Catalonia.

The pro-freedom flag known as the estelada hung from balconies throughout the region, while the Spanish flag flew in only a couple of public buildings. Only the expert independence organizations seemed capable of phoning millions of Catalans to the streets to maintain the most significant demonstrations Europe has experienced in quite a long time.

Catalonia’s secession movement is part of a growing trend of nationalism in Europe

Nationalists controlled the streets, the story of the events, and they had been the only ones with a transparent strategy to sell their origin to the rest of the planet. By early November things had changed drastically. The Spanish administration ignored the Catalan government, and several former Catalan officials have been in prison or take shelter in Belgium.

Spanish flags competed with the esteladas on balconies and terraces, particularly in Barcelona. Unity groups had organized two massive demonstrations, demonstrating that they, too, can mobilize large crowds. It seemed as if Catalonia’s quiet majority, as politicians and commentators called them, had finally woken up that the region was facing the abyss.

Outside Catalonia, a form of nationalism has begun to take on as well. Merchants have happily announced that sales of Spanish flags had skyrocketed lately as a result. However, the growing nationalism also had a darker side. Conservative groups called for a boycott of products, and small far-right groups chanted fascist slogans at unity demonstrations.

Catalan nationalism has existed for hundreds of years, and the region has rebelled against Madrid many times. Economic troubles and corruption cases involving members of Spain party strengthened separatist sentiments in recent decades.

Catalan leaders are accountable for the situation, having encouraged independence to divert voters attention from unpopular spending cuts and their very own corruption scandals. Catalan conservatives decision to abandon their traditional quest for autonomy and concentrate instead of independence helped the secessionist parties to gain ground from the center-left and left, to the point that they now command the independence movement.

The 3 Core Ideas of Catalan Secessionism

The secessionist storyline is based on three core ideas: The Spanish state is hostile to Catalonia, it threatens Catalonia’s identity, and it takes advantage of Catalonia’s wealth. The fiscal issues are subject to endless debate because though Catalonia is a contributor to the Spanish state, other regions are, too. A debate in which Spain is hostile to Catalonia and the Catalan identity is contentious. Catalan is widely spoken in the region’s public administration. Also, schools instruct Catalan history and civilization, a radical difference in the life under Francisco Franco’s dictatorship, which banned regional languages. Hardcore Spanish nationalists, in actuality, lament Madrid’s decision to give Catalonia control of its education system, which they see as a secessionist factory.

To be specific, a few Spanish government representatives have spoken with contempt of Catalonia in latest months, and the pictures of cops using force to prevent individuals from voting October 1 did not help. However, these episodes aren’t elements of a plot against the region. A running joke in Catalonia is that nobody has made a more substantial effort to create secessionists than Spain’s prime minister. Catalonia’s freedom movement is active, but it’s heterogeneous. The individuals who’ve voted for secessionist parties lately fall into three principal groups. The first includes individuals who want freedom as quickly as possible, at any cost.

[bs-quote quote=”A running joke in Catalonia is that nobody has done more for the secessionist cause than Rajoy. ” style=”style-16″ align=”center”][/bs-quote]

They feel no cultural or emotional connection to Spain, a country they consider as alien, remote and antagonistic. They consider Catalonian institutions more legitimate than their Spanish counterparts, plus they believe that Spain’s judicial system is corrupt and subject to Madrid’s political sway. They also tend to have negative opinions of southern Spanish regions, which in their view receive too much money from the state. This category is firm in the Catalan hinterland, where only Catalan is spoken and where migrants from elsewhere in Spain well.

The second group consists of those who consider independence as ideal, they’re angry at the Spanish government for its reluctance to negotiate with a legal referendum, plus they attribute Madrid’s intransigence to the crisis. This group has some relations with the 3rd one, made up of those who don’t need independence, but who vote for separatist parties in protest against the Spanish authorities. For them, the problem isn’t necessarily Spain, but the Spanish state and, particularly, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s authorities. Both of these voting blocs eventually could go back to a more moderate position, if Spanish authorities listened to them.

A running joke in Catalonia is that nobody has done more for the secessionist cause than Rajoy. Catalonia’s communications infrastructure is a well-oiled broadcasting and propaganda machine. Everything, from radio and TV to WhatsApp classes and events, is utilized to disperse pro-independence views. Catalan nationalists also have a knack for promoting their origin abroad. For the last five years, pro-independence organizers have designed demonstrations to be unusual events which will draw the attention of Television broadcasters and captivate social network users around the world. Even Barcelona’s football team plays a part in the marketing campaign: Its games are a stage for expert independence messages.

In each game, for instance, people start to sing in favor of independence when the clock reaches 17:14. Catalan officials are almost always keen to speak to international media to market their platform, and the area has started unofficial embassies in dozens of nations. By comparison, Catalonia’s unionists lacked a collective voice, then later, in a lot of cases, would decide to remain quiet on the topic of secession to prevent a confrontation with the pro-independence camp. The Spanish authorities, meanwhile, have done little to win back the minds and hearts of ordinary Catalans who’ve turned into independence only as a protest against a government that appears uninterested in them.

The Spanish Government’s strategy (or lack thereof) for managing the Catalan secession issue only increases secessionist legitimacy.

Madrid’s strategy to deal with the secessionist movement concentrates on the fact that independence is illegal. The central government has made no visible attempt to present a story to counter that of the separatists. The strategy seems to work everywhere in actuality, The ruling party, the Popular Party, is still the most famous political force in the nation. Taking into consideration the region’s political situation, however, employing the same strategy in Catalonia is insecure.

What the separatists need can be illegal under the current constitution, but that does not make their emotions any less real. Six weeks after the independence referendum, the psychological and political space between a society and the rest of Spain is as vast as ever. Madrid cannot afford to ignore the millions of Catalans who no longer feel at home in Spain. In the same time, the Catalan leadership is trapped in its own story, the snowball it’s generated is getting ever more significant as it rolls out of control.

Whichever side wins the December 21 regional elections, the Catalan conflict won’t end there. If secessionists win, as most polls indicate, they will need to determine whether or not to push ahead with secession, potentially risking a dangerous confrontation with the Spanish state, or disappoint a large part of their electorate by entering into negotiations with Madrid. And if the unionist forces prevail, they’ll fight to form a united front, because they’ve little in common with each other beyond their desire to stay in Spain.

In an ideal situation, the catastrophe would open the door for a discussion about Spain’s political and territorial model, similar to the one who followed the end of Franco’s dictatorship. Spain’s transition to democracy gave policymakers chance to explore the sort of country they desired for the future. Thus far, however, no signals have emerged that any form of debate will take place between Madrid and Catalonia.

Spain-Catalonia Secession Crisis Won’t End After December Elections was originally published on Global Security Review.

There is a saying in Catalonia:  “once they send in the tanks, they may have missed the battle.” Spanish authorities didn’t send the Spanish military to intervene against the independence referendum. However, they did ship in the police, which, in turn, lead to clashes that reportedly left over eight-hundred individuals injured.

The events of the referendum haven’t only exacerbated Spain’s worst political crisis since democracy was re-established four decades ago, they’ve given the independence movement serious momentum, which Madrid will fight to stop.

Madrid Paid a High Price for a Nominal Victory

At the weeks leading up to the vote, the Spanish administration’s strategy was to delegitimize the referendum by interrupting its organization. It was a partial success. Polling centers were closed, and the ballot boxes were confiscated, forcing individuals to vote under abnormal circumstances, without a legal electoral list and without any control to prevent them from voting several times. Consequently, the referendum results, by which 90 percent of voters favored liberty, with a participation rate of roughly 40%, per the Catalan authorities, can’t be considered reliable.

If the Spanish state has even obtained a partial legal victory, it arrived at a high price. Though a judge allowed the police crackdown on voters, it was met with shock by Catalans and international public opinion. The resulting peaceful disobedience of thousands of Catalans gave the liberty process an appearance of validity it didn’t have before.

Therefore, even though a lot of the Catalan government’s arguments for liberty are dubious, Madrid’s actions have given the additional pretext for Barcelona to declare independence unilaterally. From the start, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s approach to coping with the Catalan situation was controversial.

Spain’s mountainous geography has led to the emergence of strong regional identities which are distrustful of the central government.

For the past five hundreds of years, successive governments have chosen for a carrot-or-stick approach to ensure the integrity of Spain. The twentieth century offers clear samples of both: While Francisco Franco’s dictatorship from 1939-1975 attempted to suppress Spain’s regional identities by denying them cultural and political rights, the constitution of 1978 generated probably the most decentralized political systems in Europe, providing Spanish regions high levels of autonomy. This was intended to curb Spain’s natural tendency towards fragmentation. However, it did not eliminate it, and Spain today remains divided.

The present conservative government in Madrid is not likely to authorize a referendum in Catalonia, as it’d open the door for other regions, most notably the Basque Country and, to a lesser extent, Galicia, to need the same. Even a progressive administration will be skeptical of any decision which can lead to the dissolution of the nation.

Then there’s the dilemma the emotional connection between Catalonia and Spain, that has deteriorated over the last decade. An economic crisis, increasing anti-establishment sentiments, recurrent corruption scandals and controversial political events, like the Spanish Constitutional Court’s decision to block portions autonomy status of Catalonia in 2010, have all ruined the image of the Spanish state in the opinion of many Catalans.

The Catalan government has made a conscious effort to deepen nationalist and anti-Spanish sentiments in the region. A strong narrative has taken root in the area, presenting the Spanish state as something alien, remote and hostile to Catalonia. Consequently, support for Catalonia’s freedom climbed from approximately 20% to about 50% between 2007 and 2017.

Opinion polls before October 1 indicated that a substantial part of Catalan society would welcome institutional reforms to give Catalonia greater control over its taxes while maintaining the region within Spain. Catalonia represents approximately 20% of the Spanish gross domestic product and Madrid will be hesitant to give up substantial quantities of cash it uses to conduct the state and also to invest in other regions.

The Catalan issue will persist for some time.

But these reforms might prevent the nation from breaking, even though they aren’t on the desk. That is since Madrid and Barcelona have presented their dispute as a zero-sum game where one of the two parties has to be defeated.

The events during and after the referendum only made things worse. The Catalan government is one step closer to declaring independence, which might induce Madrid to react by suspending the autonomy of Catalonia or calling for early regional elections. While either of those options would remove the present Catalan leadership, which Madrid does not consider legal, from the equation, they’d only lead to further social unrest and potentially new episodes of violence.

Furthermore, suspending autonomy or holding ancient regional elections without first introducing real institutional reforms at the national level would do little to solve the crisis. Pro-independence sentiments are not likely to go away anytime soon. In this context, the minority government of Rajoy would become fragile domestically as well as internationally. To date, two of the three opposition parties in Spain have affirmed Madrid’s decision to obstruct the Catalan referendum.

However, the pictures of the police cracking down on voters are making it hard for unionist parties to side with the government of Rajoy. The same holds for the European Union, which affirmed Rajoy before the referendum but chose to remain quiet as events unfolded on October. In the event social unrest in Catalonia rise, the bloc will likely change its perspective of the catastrophe as an internal issue and pressure Madrid to negotiate a compromise.

In the end, Brussels and a lot of the bloc’s authorities are not likely to tolerate prolonged instability at the 4th largest economy in the eurozone. In fact, on October 2, the EU Commission urged all relevant actors at the referendum to move very quickly from confrontation to dialogue. Things in Catalonia are likely to get worse before it gets better. And when the Spanish government manages to keep the nation together, the catastrophe will leave long-lasting scars, that will form politics for many years to come.

Catalonian Secession: Madrid Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place was originally published on Global Security Review.

On Oct. 4, the region’s pro-independence parties, Junts pel Sí, along with the Popular Unity Candidates, declared that the Catalonian parliament would hold a session on Oct. 5th to proceed with its move towards independence. A Spanish Court ruling has since suspended the Catalan Parliament.

If Catalonia proceeds with a formal declaration of independence, Madrid would probably suspend the region’s autonomy and take immediate control of its government.

While the official purpose of the session would be to explore the results of the referendum that took place on October 1, secession forces within Catalan’s regional government initially planned to use the meeting to announce independence. Based on a Sept. 7 law passed by the Catalan parliament, the regional legislature must declare independence if people vote in favor of secession.

However, the Catalan President has decided hold off on a formal declaration, pending negotiations and discussions with Madrid. However, he stated that the catalonian people have a right to a vote to independance, and this issue is not one that will die quickly.

The current situation in Catalonia

On Oct. 1, 90 percent of poll respondents supported independence from the Spanish state. Presently, all communication channels between the Spanish and the Catalan governments seem to be broken. Madrid insists that the referendum was prohibited and refuses to negotiate with the government which has broken the law.

Furthermore, on Oct. 3 Spanish King Felipe VI accused the Catalans authorities of violating the Spanish Constitution. The Catalan government, in turn, insists that it’ll only negotiate with Madrid if a legally binding referendum is on the table, something which  Spanish authorities vehemently oppose.

If Catalonia proceeds with a formal declaration of independence, Madrid would probably suspend the region’s autonomy and take immediate control of its government.

Could Madrid seize control and suspend Catalan autonomy?

Not only could this decision be controversial in Catalonia and the rest of Spain, but it could also be challenging to enforce. This step would lead to significant street protests and potential acts of vandalism against Spanish institutions throughout the region. Support from security forces will be required.

However, Madrid expresses worry over the fact that Catalonia’s regional police, known as the Mossos d’Esquadra, did not obey a Spanish judge’s order to close down polling centers on referendum day to prevent individuals from voting. Courts in Catalonia have already begun investigations against Mossos for an offense of disobedience. Since the beginning of the independence process, expert secession forces have organized many massive demonstrations.

Their main aim was to show Madrid as well as the international community that countless thousands of Catalans support independence. However, they’re also a broader demonstration of strength along with a reminder that any action contrary to Catalonia, especially one as drastic as suspending the region’s autonomy, will lead to massive protests.

Analysis: Outside mediation may be necessary if tensions escalate and violence increases.

In a situation of widespread regional revolt, Madrid will face the dilemma of having to choose between using force in Catalonia or entering into negotiations with the regional government. The former could come to the price of deepening one already considerable catastrophe and possibly triggering an intervention from the European Union.

Thus far, the bloc and most of its authorities have sided with Madrid, calling the Catalan referendum prohibited and pledging to honor the unity of Spain. However, E.U. leaders have also cautioned that a continued forceful response by the central government in Madrid would result in an escalation of violence, and have advised Spanish and Catalan authorities to reestablish dialogue to reach an agreed-upon solution.

However, if tensions between Madrid and Barcelona carry on or escalate, an outside mediator may be required to ensure stability and security both in Spain and in the European Union.

Catalonia Moves Toward Independence—Will Madrid Seize Control? was originally published on Global Security Review.