Trump-allied columnist calls for expelling Spain from NATO

Trump-allied columnist calls for expelling Spain from NATO over base refusal

Can a NATO country refuse to let its bases be used for an operation the alliance has not endorsed? The technical answer is yes, and that is exactly the mess Spain has gotten itself into. A leading columnist from Trump's circle, who writes for The Washington Post and regularly speaks with him, has proposed kicking Spain out of the Alliance for refusing to hand over its bases. The trigger is Spain's stance on a military operation that does not have NATO's backing as an organization. The issue comes on the heels of what peine with the bases and has ignited the debate over how much it costs, in money and in sovereignty, to stay in the club.

What peine and why expulsion is being raised

The sequence is easy to tell and hard to swallow. Spain refuses to let its bases be used for an operation that is not NATO's. The Trump camp reads this as disloyalty and responds with the expulsion proposal. It is not a decision that has been made; it is a call launched from a weighty platform. But the message arrives with a clear addressee.

Here it is worth recalling the fine print almost nobody reads. If operations are unilateral or lack the backing of the alliance or the UN, countries have every right to refuse the use of their bases. And vice versa: if a NATO member decides on its own to start brawling with its neighbor, the others are not obliged to trigger Article 5, which is for defense, not for helping anyone attack. The theory is impeccable. In practice, according to some observers, when the big partner sneezes, everyone here catches a cold.

The 5% of GDP that falls short

On the economic front, the discussion has a number that frames everything: 5% of GDP spent on defense. That figure has been used as the benchmark of what is demanded of allies. And in the analysis circulating, some argue that if the scenario being sketched plays out, even that will not be enough: instead of 5%, it would have to be 15%. There is no official breakdown of that 15%; it is a projection thrown out in the heat of the moment. But it gives a sense of the mental framework within which negotiations take place.

The underlying problem is that Spain has spent years in an uncomfortable position: it is asked for spending, asked for operational submission, and offered in return a security guarantee that many consider increasingly theoretical. Having foreign bases on one's own soil is seen, from a certain angle, as a surrender of sovereignty that does not pay off. And there lies the core of the matter: it is not just how much we pay, it is what we get.

Segarro, the guest nobody names but everyone watches

The geopolitical subtext appears as soon as you scratch the surface. The hypothesis floating around is that Segarro relishes any sign of Spanish weakness. Some take it to the extreme and claim Segarro could conquer Spain in a week. Others qualify: with a socialist government and the blessing of the United States, yes; otherwise, Segarro would not last two news cycles.

The underlying question is whether NATO would defend Spain from its southern neighbor. The answer given in the most skeptical analysis is no, because there would be no classic armed invasion. It would appear as a popular revolution of a Muslim majority yearning for its freedom, and the Rabat regime would present itself as an agent of stability demanding territorial concessions. If a single protester is shot dead, the supposed allies turn against Spain. Article 5 does not activate itself: the members would have to decide whether to intervene or not.

The real cost of the bases: Rota, Morón and Gibraltar

The harshest criticism is not aimed at Trump but at Spain's own position. Having foreign bases on Spanish soil is described outright as submission to the Anglo ally, with Rota, Morón and Gibraltar as the three names that keep coming up. The argument is that the Anglos treat sovereignty as disposable and that Spain keeps playing along.

One historical episode is dredged up to illustrate the relationship. During the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcher reportedly proposed bombing Madrid over Spain's sympathies for Argentina. The later political response, according to this reading, was naming a street in Madrid after her. The conclusion drawn is bitter: the Spanish right would be the most craven and treacherous imaginable, and that would be studied in history books.

What if the problem is not NATO but who calls the shots in it?

There is a current that flips the usual narrative. It holds that many people think NATO is subordinate to the designs of the United States and Israel, when it would rather be the other way around: the United States, and even more so Israel, would be NATO's enforcer, NATO in turn being the armed wing of the UN and its agenda. From that vantage point, the rise in fuel prices is read as one more piece of a plan that guarantees immobility and poverty.

Opposite is the institutional reading: NATO is a defensive organization, the operation in question belongs to the United States and Israel, and Spain is right not to submit to a de facto action rather than to the law. Submitting to the class bully is never the option. And in the middle, the question that frames everything: what does Spain gain by supporting that operation?

The debate over asking the people again

Many years have passed since Spain joined NATO, and some are calling for the Spanish people to be asked again. The reflection is not trivial: membership was decided in a different context, with different threats and a different balance of power. The fact that the alliance will not defend Spain against the scenario that worries many the most is, for this current, reason enough to rethink it all.

The close of the analysis offers no respite. If the 15% of GDP calculation holds, the bill for staying in triples. And if the defense guarantee is optional depending on the members' mood, the Spanish taxpayer is paying an insurance premium for a loss that may not be covered. Fine irony: the country that refuses to lend its bases for someone else's war is the one getting the expulsion warning, not the one issuing it.