Pedro Sánchez backs Open Arms amid criticism over its funding

Who does the state really fund when it subsidises Open Arms?

Pedro Sánchez's statement of support for Open Arms has peine the debate over the funding model of sea rescue NGOs. While the Spanish Prime Minister praises their humanitarian work, part of the economic analysis questions the origin of the funds and the real impact of these subsidies on migration policy.

The subsidy business

The discussion centres on Open Arms' dependence on public funds. One view holds that the NGO operates as a business sustained by state and European subsidies, with no transparency about its management model. It is argued that the EU directly finances these operations, fuelling a cycle of economic dependence. On the opposite side, there are those who maintain that the resources go towards saving lives and that without public support the work would be unviable.

The pull effect and its costs

Another point of friction is the so-called "pull effect". Critics of government support argue that subsidies encourage irregular migration routes, generating an additional cost for the state in reception and security. Concrete figures are absent from the debate, but reports from outlets such as El Mundo or El País are cited as linking the funding to the rise in arrivals. The lack of public data, however, makes it impossible to quantify the real impact.

The EU's role

European funding is the elephant in the room. Without it, Open Arms could not operate, according to critics. Defenders, however, point out that rescue in the Mediterranean is an obligation of member states and that NGOs fill the gap left by the absence of official resources. The debate remains open, with no clear accounting of the public money committed.

The irony of the matter is that while the government applauds the rescuers, the figures justifying its support remain undisclosed. And in economics, whatever goes unmeasured usually ends up being paid with interest.