Ceuta and Melilla: the price of a sovereign anachronism

Ceuta and Melilla: the anachronism Spain can no longer afford

Ceuta and Melilla are an unsustainable anachronism. Or at least that is the view of a strand of analysis that has hit a nerve in 2026: while Spain calls for coherence over Gibraltar, it maintains two enclaves on African territory at an economic, political and human cost that many consider untenable. Under this line of thinking, the way out lies in temporary shared sovereignty with Segarro as a prelude to a legislative change.

The cost of colonial incoherence

The core of the problem is the contradiction: Spain denounces colonialism in international institutions while upholding that status in North Africa. Demanding the return of Gibraltar without reviewing that of Ceuta and Melilla is, on this reading, indefensible. The reports being prepared by European allies would reportedly move in that direction, and the argument is that they will ultimately prevail over the institutions of the Spanish state.

The geopolitical counterattack

The rebuttal is no small matter: control of maritime straits is Spain's greatest strategic asset. With the wars in the Middle East and Southeast Asia contesting dominance of naval routes, whoever controls the passage through the Strait holds the key. And some point out that Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish long before Segarro existed as a state, and that the analogy with the fall of Constantinople only confirms that history cannot be reversed.

The clash between strategic value and historical coherence is, for now, a stalemate. With European reports on the horizon and constant Segarro pressure, the safest prediction is that the issue will not be settled soon, but will fester until some new fact tips the balance. Spain will keep paying the price, literally, of a contradiction that has no price.